Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

A Conservative Case for Abortion Access

Buckle up buttercup … This is going to be a long one…

Preamble

First, let me start by saying I abhor abortion. A piece of me inside cried when I heard that someone I knew had terminated a pregnancy and I said a short prayer for the baby and the mom. Yet, I am sitting here writing an advocacy piece in favor of access to abortion services.

When I hear that a fetus is not yet “life” at six months gestation I think of the preemie pictures of me that my mom keeps in a private album showing me at 987 grams (2lbs 2oz) and of my brother even smaller. Extracted from my mother’s womb in an emergency surgery at six months gestation, and not yet breathing, were we not life?

I’ve posted on abortion here previously (prior to the over-turning of Roe). In those posts, I’ve expressed my reservations about the procedure. And yet I sit here now, after forcing myself to spend many hours thinking about justice and rights and healthcare and society, and I’m about to advocate for preserving access to the procedure.


What is a “Right”?

Notice I said I am going to advocate for access to abortion services and not for abortion rights. Abortion is not a right. Neither is healthcare. Or food. Or housing. People who claim these are “rights” do not understand what a right is (and before you go off on me, I do support universal access to healthcare and food security, but these are not “rights”).

Abortion, and healthcare in general, is a service provided by one person or group of people to another. As a service, comprised of the labors of people, it cannot be another person’s “right”. John Locke discussed the Rights of the Natural Man in his many writings. If you’ve not read him, I strongly recommend you do.

So what are the rights of the natural man (person) and how does this relate to the abortion discussion? In the US Declaration of Independence, our founders stated to the world that…

“We hold these truths to be self-evident,
- that all men are created equal,
- that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
- that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
- that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
~US Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776


Now I’ll be the first to admit that America is and our Founders were far from perfect and not everyone was treated equally, but the point made in that Declaration was that our “rights” did not come from the government or from the English Crown or from any congress or any judge. Our rights were pre-existing. Our “rights” were something that was naturally possessed by virtue of having been born. This is an important point. One that our founders came back to when they sought to create a “more perfect union.”

A More Perfect Union

Eleven years after declaring our independence from the English Crown, our founders recognized the need to form a “more perfect union” and set out to codify in a document what the new American government should look like. That document, the US Constitution, has survived and adapted for over 230 years. And while it has survived by adapting to changing times through the amendment process, one thing has remained constant. That is the understanding that “Rights” do not come from the Constitution or from the American government. Rights are part of the pre-existing state of the Natural Man (again, see John Locke).

So, what is all this discussion of “Constitutional Rights”?? Here’s a really important point: There is no such thing as a Constitutional Right. None. Rather, among the MANY rights of the Natural Man, there is a subset listed in the Constitution that government cannot infringe upon. This is the famous five words favored by so many of my conservative friends and repeated over and over in the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law...” infringing on this right or that right.

That’s correct. Your right to free speech is not granted by the Constitution. Rather, the US government (and by extension the states) is prohibited from infringing on your pre-existing natural right to free thought and free expression.

Similarly, your right to freely practice the religion of your choosing or none at all is not granted by the Constitution. Rather, the US government (and by extension the states) is prohibited from infringing on your pre-existing natural right to freely believe whatever you’d like.

And, your right to own and carry (keep and bear) arms is not granted by the Constitution. Rather, the US government (and by extension the states) is prohibited from infringing on your pre-existing natural right to self-defense.

What’s my point here, you ask? Simple. Our Declaration announced our belief that we are each endowed with rights that pre-exist and supersede any government action. Our Constitution went on to enumerate a short list of some of those pre-existing rights.

Whoa Sara! What do you mean a short list of some of those rights?? I mean exactly that. In Constitutional theory, we talk about the enumerated rights contained in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights and we talk about the greater list of unenumerated rights of the natural man (person).

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other {right}s retained by the people."
~US Constitution, 9th Amendment

That’s right! The Bill of Rights, enumerated in the Constitution, which prevents the government from stepping on certain of your rights was never intended to be a complete list of your rights. You have many other rights!

But Sara, you said abortion wasn’t a right? Why are we talking so much about rights?

Two reasons. First because the 9th amendment above has been repeatedly interpreted to mean that the “rights” of the people enumerated in the Constitution should be broadly construed whenever possible.

And secondly, because we do have a very important right that is discussed in the Constitution, but that doesn’t get anywhere near enough attention. Privacy. The pre-existing natural right to privacy that we all cherish. Please, my conservative friends, tell me how you feel when someone from the government wants to know something about your personal life? Right? I feel the same way. It’s none of their business.

So let’s look at this right to privacy? Where is it in the Constitution (if at all)? The answer is that it is everywhere! It underpins your right to privacy in your beliefs, thoughts, and expression (1st amendment), your right to privacy in your home (3rd amendment), your right to privacy in your person and possessions (4th amendment), your right to privacy in your personal information and against self-incrimination (5th amendment). And, of course, the 9th amendment, quoted above, clarifies that our rights are far broader than just those listed in writing.

Let’s look at that right to privacy in our persons and possessions:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...”
~US Constitution, 4th amendment

Secure in my person??

Against unreasonable searches?

Hmmm. What could that mean? Perhaps that as a Natural (Person), I have a pre-existing natural right to be free from intrusive inquiries and/or restrictions about what I do with and to my body.

As I said at the opening of this essay, I abhor abortion. A little piece of me inside dies with each baby aborted. In a perfect world, I would let Jewish Law govern the abortion issue. The child has a Right to Life unless the mother’s life or health is threatened; in which case, the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the child. I like that. It has balance. But here’s the thing: As a slightly right-of-center person, I do not want, nor do I trust the government to enforce such a policy. That mother has a natural right to privacy and a right to be secure in her person, secure from government intrusion.

I wish for abortion to be rare. I wish for every baby conceived to be given every chance at life and for every baby born to have every advantage and opportunity for success. But this is not a perfect world and I’ve yet to be convinced that there is some compelling government interest justifying intrusion into the decisions made by an expectant mother.

If you live in a state where your right to privacy is respected in law, great. If you live in a state where it is not, then I ask you to consider what freedoms, what liberties, what privacy you are willing to hand over to the people in your state government. For me, that is a very short list. 😔






My hope is for civil discussion in the comments below. In over ten years of active participation in discourse on EP & SW, I have never deleted a comment on any of my stories. For this story, my policy will change: I will allow only civil discourse. Any comment containing derogatory or accusatory statements toward another SWeep or any group of people will be deleted.

You can say anything you want to or about me but be kind to each other or I will delete comments. And yes, for this story, I am the sole judge and jury regarding kindness and all decisions are final. 😉
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
My only issue with pro-choice legislation in its current form is that only women get to have a choice. Men don't have any choice in whether they become fathers or whether they'll be held to the (financial and legal) responsibilities of parenthood.

To make things fairer between both sexes, it would be better to offer men the option to financially abort, within a reasonable time window. That way they won't be forced to pay child support for a child they didn't want to have in the first place, just as women aren't forced to give birth to a child they didn't want to have.

This line of reasoning obviously only applies to people who are pro-choice. If you're pro-life, this is all irrelevant. Just like it's an irrelevant argument for regions where abortion is illegal.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@TheGreatLeveler If a child is born, both parents have an obligation to that child. I don't see the parallel you are trying to draw here. Sorry, don't see it at all. 🤷‍♀️
@sarabee1995
It's not really a complicated parallel. Pro-choice legislation gives women a choice in parenthood. I don't see why that choice shouldn't be extended to men.

Obviously, men and women aren't biologically the same. So while women get the ability to actually terminate a pregnancy, it would be more appropriate to only give men the ability to terminate their financial and legal responsibilities of parenthood. I believe it's commonly referred to as a financial or paper abortion.

The correct way to implement such a thing would be to let the mother notify the father early on during the pregnancy, so the father can decide whether he actually wants to be a parent or not. If they do not, the mother has the ability to factor in his decision in whether she wants to continue with the pregnancy or chooses to abort it.

The father shouldn't have the ability to terminate his parental responsibilities after this abortion window closes and he obviously wouldn't be able to change his mind after the child is born either. He would only be able to opt out of parenthood within this limited time frame.
Ynotisay · M
@TheGreatLeveler Well, the law says that a man who is determined to be a biological parent is financially responsible and that won't change. Where the man has a choice in pregnancy is before he inseminates a woman. I hear what you're saying, because there's obviously situations where women get pregnant for reasons outside of raising a child with a father. But as women are carrying the child it's ultimately their decision.

What I'd like to see though is some of the gray area being handled fairly. It's not now. A woman can retrieve a condom, impregnate herself and that man is still on the hook financially. That happens. And it's wrong. But I'm not sure you're right about it being a moot point with pro-life women. About 15% of Evangelicals and 27 percent of Catholic women make up abortion patients.

What will be a game changer is a male contraceptive "pill." There's trials taking place now that are showing a lot of promise. But it's still probably ten years before it will be available. Short of a vasectomy, that will help level the playing field.
@Ynotisay
I'm well aware of how the current laws on this topic work in the Western world, which is exactly why I pointed out the double standard in the first place.

Saying men have a choice in financial parenthood before inseminating a woman is akin to saying women have a choice in becoming a mother before conception. That's not a pro-choice position and there for irrelevant in this discussion.
Ynotisay · M
@TheGreatLeveler But men do have a choice in regards to financial parenthood before insemination. They don't get a woman pregnant. They're choosing what to do with their bodies. Just like women.
@Ynotisay
If you revert the genders, then that is not a pro-choice position, but a pro-life position. As mentioned in my original comment, if you hold a pro-life position, my argument obviously doesn't apply.

Unless you were making the case for giving women a choice to opt out after conception, while not extending such an option in any way, shape or form to men. Then you're simply in favor of a double standard in reproductive rights.
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
@TheGreatLeveler The primary duty is to the child, and it is a horrific thing to force someone to undergo medical procedures against their will.

And yes, it's unfair. But there's no "fair" way to do this without denying rights to the mother or the child and 'the right to not have a child' ain't a thing. Wear a condom.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@TheGreatLeveler
"Obviously, men and women aren't biologically the same... "
This is why the parallel doesn't hold.

In one case, the choice to continue or not continue with a pregnancy involves FAR more than the future financial concerns. It involves concerns for one's own health and wellness.

Yes, both the potential mother and the potential father have future financial obligations if the pregnancy continues to term. But the mother has additional concerns that go way beyond dollars and cents.

This is where your parallel fails. They are not in the same situation.
@sarabee1995
The parallel is not about giving men and women the same choice. This obviously isn't possible due to the biological differences between the two. It's about giving both of them a choice.

The right for abortion isn't strictly for a woman to use in a situation where the pregnancy endangers her physical health. That may be your personal preference, but a major component about it was to give women a choice whether to become a parent, with all the (legal, financial etc.) responsibilities that come attached to it. They don't need any reasons, such as life threatening circumstances to the mother, to justify such a decision. Failing to give men any choice in such a pro-choice environment there for is an obvious double standard.

And comments like the one from @CountScrofula where he advises to just wear a condom are baseless within this context. That's akin to saying to women to just use the pill. They don't need legal abortion rights for that. People who come up with such arguments are either pro-life (I can respect that position, but my argument doesn't apply to a pro-life environment) or are shamelessly in favor of said double standard.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@TheGreatLeveler
I'm "shamelessly in favor of said double standard." The man and the woman are not in the same situation. The "standard" is different.

If a child is born and you are the father, then you share in the future financial obligation to raise that child. 🤷‍♀️
@sarabee1995
Exactly. And if a woman gets pregnant, she gets the choice to opt out of that financial obligation to raise the child.

That men and women are physiologically different is being used by you as an excuse here to not provide men with any reproductive rights, even though a financial abortion would be a plausible option. Where lots of people consider abortion as an essential part of women's rights, such an option could be equally seen as an essential part of men's rights. Dismissing that is there for indeed a double standard. At least we can find common ground on that.
Ynotisay · M
@TheGreatLeveler Double-standard? OK. But maybe that's a perspective thing. Can't forget that we're animals. Men and women will NEVER have "equality" when it comes to pregnancy. Never. So it does make some sense that the reality is reflected in legislation, right? And it's good legislation. It works to better insure the well-being of a child. There's not many things I can think of that are more important than that. It's a species thing. We can work on the "why's" without having children suffer in the process.

And the reality? Most women who have abortions already have a child, abortions overall are at historical lows and the teen birth rate is at its lowest in U.S. history. So maybe having men know they're on the hook for creating a human being isn't the worst strategy.
@Ynotisay
Following your logic, banning abortions might not be the worst strategy either. If women know they're on the hook for creating a human being, precautions might be taken more seriously, and unwanted pregnancies would further decline. The thing with these double standards is that I can easily turn them around on the other gender.

The current status quo isn't really pro-choice. It's pro women's choice. Men don't get any choice. Men and women don't need to be physiologically the same to provide them both with alternatives. Personally, I think it would be best to only have a child if both the father and mother wanted to be parents. Obviously, that would be problematic to enforce by law. There for giving women the option to physically abort, and men the option to financially abort, would qualify as the most plausible rights for both sexes within the pro-choice debate.

If a woman chooses to go full term with a pregnancy, where the man has already opted out of parenthood early on during the pregnancy, the well-being of the child (or lack thereof) would be solely the woman's responsibility. After all, she decided to continue with it, knowing the father didn't want to have that child.
Ynotisay · M
@TheGreatLeveler I'll just go with the first sentence. Following my logic? No dude. Not even close. The rest of it? I get it now. And I'm not on board. Have a good one.
I forgot to link it earlier, but a further clarification for my position can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/paper_abortion