Is Anyone Really Pro-Abortion?

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us to seek to understand the arguments of our opposition, including the way that they use language. People who call themselves pro-choice often claim that nobody is “pro-abortion,” and that this is a derogatory label used by pro-lifers. Pro-lifers scratch their head and say, “What do you mean nobody is pro-abortion? How can you fight for the legalization of abortion and not call yourselves pro-abortion?”
To someone who is pro-choice, to be pro-abortion means to want a specific woman to get an abortion. He can claim to not be pro-abortion because he wishes that no woman would ever have to get an abortion. On the other hand, he believes that abortion must be a choice for women who would find themselves enslaved to an unwanted pregnancy without it. The pro-choice position is to make abortion “safe, legal and rare.” How do they propose to go about reaching this goal?

• Focus on government programs to help people who are in poverty, since poor women are most heavily burdened by unintended pregnancies
• Widespread sex education that teaches about contraception choices
• Increased distribution of contraception including government programs to make contraception readily available for free or at low costs (at government expense)

For St. Thomas Aquinas, understanding the opposition’s arguments does not mean accepting them – it means examining them and refuting them when they are found wanting. In this case, there are a number of problems. First of all, pro-choice people are pro-abortion, not in the sense that they want a woman to get an abortion, but in the sense that they see abortion as a valid solution to problems of poverty and sexual “freedom.” People who are pro-life fight to end poverty and want women to be in charge of their reproductive powers as well. We don’t see killing babies as a valid solution when other attempts fail.

Secondly, their proposed solutions are also weak. Most people who are pro-choice also seem to promote the promiscuity engendered by the “sexual revolution.” They see contraception as the solution because contraception can get rid of the natural consequence/purpose of sex while encouraging sexual “freedom.” The illogical conclusion that increased contraception means decreased abortions was even seen by the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey when the majority opinion said that the continued use of contraception makes the availability of abortion necessary as a back-up when contraception fails. Contraception availability increases the likelihood of “casual sex,” and increases rather than decreases the need for abortion.

The pro-choice focus on poverty is a correct focus. Studies have shown that the poor suffer the most from the prevalence of unmarried sex. However, to throw contraception and abortion at the problem ignores the most important issue. Our country’s attitude toward sexuality has made it easier for men to use women and avoid responsibility. This is not sexual freedom for women. It is sexual freedom for men. Poor women do have less access to contraception and abortion, but having greater access wouldn’t keep them from being used.

Pro-choice people who say that they are not pro-abortion are half-right. They do sincerely wish that abortion were not necessary. However, as long as our culture embraces the myth of sex without consequences, abortion will be necessary. The only way to truly be pro-choice is to help women to make the choice to respect their reproductive powers, to make wiser decisions about sex and to refuse to be used by men. Until this happens, I’d be more likely to call sexual liberals pro-abortion than pro-choice, even by their own definition.