Quick Apology: “Better than back-alley abortions”
Today I would like to continue this pro-life blog series by briefly responding to something which is regularly brought up during discussions on abortion.
Objection
I have often heard it said, even by people who think that abortion is terrible and wrong, that they would prefer to see abortion remain legal for fear that, if it were made illegal, it would just drive the abortion industry underground:
“I think abortion is wrong, but I think it’s much better to keep it legal so that we can make it as safe as possible”
On the Internet, this is often expressed in images such as this:
Of course, whenever a person says he doesn’t like abortion but still wants to keep it legal, a really good starting place to begin the discussion is to ask him first why he don’t like abortion… But does the logic presented here stand up to scrutiny? Is it better for abortion to be legal and regulated?
Response
Avoiding laws that people will break
In putting forward such an argument, the pro-choice advocate is basically saying that we can’t make intrinsic evils illegal because it’ll just drive them underground.
The problem with this logic is that, if we were consistent on this point, we would have no laws! After all, won’t making anything illegal drive it underground? If we followed this policy, the only laws we’d ever make would be those which nobody would ever break…and, if nobody would ever break those laws, what would be the point in making those laws in the first place?
Problematic Example #1: Toddlers too?
In responding to this objection, we could also use the strategy outlined in an earlier post, presenting once more the logic of the argument, but this time replacing the unborn child with a toddler.
How would you react to the assertion that killing toddlers shouldn’t be illegal, because otherwise it would just drive all the toddler killing underground?
Problematic Example #2: Regulated Slavery?
The essential logic presented in this objection is that making something illegal drives it underground. If we want to embrace this idea, what other evils should we regulate instead of outlaw? How about slavery?
Would it be a good idea to make slavery legal and regulated, rather than battling illegal human trafficking?
Problematic Example #3: Dogs and babies?
Both England and America are nations of animal lovers and I wonder how the RSPA and the ASPCA would react if we applied the similar logic to the treatment of animals…
How would the animal rights organizations respond to the assertion that dog fights should be made legal because otherwise they would just be driven underground? There would be many advantages to this. For example, if they were legal, we could make sure no owners got accidentally hurt in the fights. You could also have a vet on standby to put down any losing animals. Obviously, the animal rights organizations would reject this logic.
Of course, this comparison in this example is woefully inadequate. We’re not talking about the death of canines here, but the death of human beings and I think that most people, theist or atheist, would ascribe to human beings intrinsic worth far above that of animals.
Safe for whom?
So, returning to the argument, the position being articulated by the pro-choice advocate is as follows:
1. Make abortion illegal and women die from back-street abortions
2. Make abortion legal and we increase the chance of women surviving the operation
When a pro-lifer hears that abortion should be legal to keep it “safe”, we naturally ask “How safe are these legal abortions for the babies?”. Even if an abortion is done “safely”, it still results in at least one mortality.
False Dilemma
Not only that, the pro-choice advocate presents a false dilemma. There is, in fact, a third option available to us:
3. Make abortion illegal. Provide mothers with ample support so that they can carry babies to term. The mother can then either care for the child or put the child up for adoption
Doesn’t this seem like the better, non-violent option? Isn’t that the more civilized choice? If so, wouldn’t it make more sense to invest in adoption services and pregnancy care, rather than in supporting institutions which bring about the death of an innocent?
From one commenter on Facebook: “And legalized slavery is better than human trafficking!”
At what point in offering these compelling counter points are you told, by a man, that until you can have a baby you don’t have a right to have an opinion on abortion?
I don’t have this objection yet scheduled for a “Quick Apology”, but here’s my basic response:
1. Wow, how sexist! You’re discounting my opinion because I’m a man?
2. I’ve never owned a slave. Am I allowed to have an opinion on the morality of slavery?
3. I guess we should overturn Roe vs. Wade then, since it was passed by a group of men…
It seems that proponents of the third option tend to fixate on “mak[ing] abortion illegal” and forget to “provide mothers with ample support”. As Christians, we cannot simply disregard the needs of the mother. Rather, we should be lobbying the government to ensure that EACH expectant mother has access to a safe place to stay and adequate nutrition and medical care should she bear her child to term. Only once these systems are in place can we even begin to consider rallying against abortion.
Hey Alyosha, thank you for your thoughtful comment and welcome to Restless Pilgrim 🙂
I completely agree. The post which I published today talks a little bit about what the Church already does to support those with unintended pregnancies. But could more be done? Absolutely.
You seem to be suggesting that we can’t speak out against moral evil until we have managed to convince government to pass legislation to better support avoidance of that evil. I’m afraid I don’t follow the logic.
As a comparison, would you say that we shouldn’t speak out against theft or make it illegal until we’ve got a society whereby we’ve removed all need and want? As I said in another post, abortion is not good for the woman or the child! Why would we delay until some legislation (which may or may not be effective) is passed?
In many cases (but by no means all), the reasons why some seek abortion are brought about through ignoring the moral teaching of the Church. For example, if people stopped having premarital sex, abortions would be dramatically reduced. Also, if people stopped placing false trust in contraception, abortions would be reduced yet further. In your opinion, is the Church allowed to speak out against these moral issues, or should this only be allowed after some other kind of legislation has been passed? What kind of legislation would be needed in these cases?
I suppose my real question is: why can’t we both speak out against abortion and petition the government for better support for unintended pregnancies? We could also devote more energy in the Church to supporting these programmes.
In response to an earlier post, a reader posted a comment similar to yours, although she lay the burden of supporting mothers and children at the feet of the Church, rather than the government. I think my response might be helpful to your position also. Here’s what I said:
*** Are these things mutually exclusive? ***
I completely agree that the Church can do more to support families as a whole, as well as children and teenagers specifically. I wouldn’t suggest that this is an either/or situation, though. I don’t think the two initiatives are mutually exclusive. We don’t have to choose to between either opposing abortion or supporting families. We can do both.
To consider another example, I think of the problem of domestic abuse:
1. I believe that the Church can do an awful lot to help prevent domestic abuse (supporting families, informing morals, providing solid marriage preparation and ongoing support etc)
2. I also think that we can do a lot to help in the recovery of those those who have suffered domestic abuse (providing safe houses, counseling etc.)
So, there is the opportunity for the Church to take further steps to help prevent domestic abuse and help people recover if they have suffered from it. However, we can do both of these things in addition to opposing domestic violence in general. Even if the Church didn’t provide any of these desired services, she would still be correct in saying domestic violence is wrong and should be illegal.
So, returning to the subject of abortion, I think the Church can both speak out against abortion and have programmes to support families. In fact, that’s what a lot of parishes already do (at least to some degree).
*** Solving the world’s problems & a call to all Catholics***
I think it is worth bearing in mind that supporting families is not the only area in which the Church could do more. We live in a world racked by so many problems:
1. Poverty
2. Racial discrimination
3. Prostitution
4. Human trafficking
5. Absentee parents
…
The list of problems is almost endless. However, it is “better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness”. The Church does what she can in these different areas. Could more be done? Absolutely.
I hope this helps 🙂
You’ll hear people talk about the large numbers of women who died as a result of “back alley abortions” prior to Roe vs. Wade, but this is mostly false.
Regarding the numbers, Bernard Nathanson was an abortion provider who later became pro-life said that they made up those numbers in an attempt to support the abortion movement.
Concerning the location of the abortions, Mary Calderon who was President of Planned Parenthood in the early 60’s said that 90% of illegal abortions were done in doctor’s offices.
Finally, concerning the mortality rate due to their clandestine nature, Mary Calderon also said that in 1972, there were around 37 deaths from illegal abortion and 25 deaths from legal abortion.