With the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade, the political landscape surrounding the issue of abortion has become a seething mass of hysterics by both sides of the issue. In this reactionary firestorm, it’s important to keep some things in philosophical perspective.

First, for all intents and purposes, almost no one has changed their mind on the issue. The people who were pro-life before the judgment came down are still pro-life, and the people who were pro-abortion before are pro-abortion now. The electoral lines haven’t budged.

Second, while the decision was a boon for pro-life advocates, it wasn’t, by any means, a total win, because the issue was merely kicked back to the states. Generally speaking, states that are Democratic will still allow broad abortion policies, while states that are Republican will have more restrictive abortion laws.

In lieu of this, it’s crucial the pro-life movement solidifies wins in states where pro-life policies can be implemented without overstepping the social and cultural mandate. As I’ve discussed in prior articles, I personally support abortion exceptions for rape, incest, and imminent life risk of the mother, situations where the mother does not have a clear moral obligation.

It is these three issues that abortionists lean the hardest on when they are arguing, even though according to even the data sources used by the left, such abortions represent far less than 5% of all abortions performed in the United States. When I’ve looked at primary sources from the CDC and the NIH, it’s much less than 2% of all abortions in the United States.

By taking these talking points away from the abortionists, we can force the left to argue on elective abortion, which they cannot win without the cover of ambiguity of moral obligation to hide behind. They would be forced to try to defend the slaughter of defenseless human beings in the womb for no other reason than the mother doesn’t want to have a kid. That’s a losing argument.

All of this said, I do believe that there should be a legal exception for imminent life risk to the mother’s health. Pregnancies where the fetus have implanted outside the uterus or where multiple doctors agree that an abortion is medically necessary to save the mother’s life are morally defensible and consistent with the pro-life position, because the pro-life position is first and foremost about preserving life.

We can be pro-life without ghoulishly forcing women to needlessly (and immorally) face death. This is just something to think about.

---

Liberty is For The Win!