Feminist discourse has long held that “the personal is political.” Today, it seems that the reverse is even more true: the political is often personal. And no political issue is as personal or as touchy as abortion.
With a much-anticipated ballot measure on abortion coming up in Ohio this fall, and much of the rest of the country mired in a new post-Dobbs reality in which abortion is a live legislative issue, many of us wonder what happens when family members or friends — especially female family members or friends — are divided by abortion politics.
Can personal relationships withstand a political disagreement of this intimacy and magnitude?
I grew up in a Catholic home with openly pro-life parents that treasured relationships with many pro-choice friends, family members and colleagues. I remain a pro-life Democrat (there are still a lot of us, just not in Congress) and a practicing Catholic. I now have many pro-choice friends, family members and colleagues of my own.
So, I believe that the answer is yes. But only if everyone involved is willing to approach this uniquely difficult topic in ways that reflect both good faith and mature reason.
More nuanced, less rancorous conversations and debates lead to a more nuanced, less rancorous civic culture. That healthier civic culture can even lead to greater willingness to seek and engage in hard truths together, of which there are plenty to go round.
In a spirit of fostering personal friendships that can healthily engage the toughest political questions, here are three things that each of us can bring to difficult conversations and debates with friends that have different views on abortion from our own.
Historical perspective
When pro-choice people say that abortion has always been common, they are correct. Abortion has existed since long before antiquity. The sexual revolution is a favorite scapegoat among pro-life Americans and especially pro-life feminists, but the truth is that women have always had compelling reasons to terminate pregnancies. Acknowledging this history is not the same thing as saying that abortion is good. After all, lots of less than desirable things are the historical rules rather than the exceptions.
Still, acknowledging the reality of abortion’s historical ubiquity does help to correctly reframe the debate: proponents of abortion access are the conservatives in this conversation because they are arguing on behalf of the status quo. Those that seek to eradicate abortion are the progressives (on this issue, if on no other) because they are arguing on behalf of the inclusion of what they believe to be a marginalized group of individuals (i.e., the unborn) among those whose interests should be duly considered. As in all things, the onus to prove a case is on the issue’s progressives — in this case, pro-life Americans — that seek to change the traditional equilibrium.
Factual reality
Those that hold strong positions on either side of the abortion issue typically fail to acknowledge at least one of these three scientific and technical realities — because at least one of these three scientific and technical realities cuts against their arguments.
First, the vast majority of abortions take place before 12 weeks of pregnancy. Today, these abortions can be and often are effectuated with pills that are impossible to regulate. So, the six-week bans that have been adopted in several states are wholly ineffective, if the goal is to save unborn lives rather than to capriciously wield pointless cruelty against women and their families.
Second, today’s ultrasound technology, as well as the advanced medical technologies implicated in premature newborn care, clearly indicate that fetal viability is a moving target. They also show that a child in utero can indeed register voices, stimuli, and pain long before viability. Tying a right to life to the capacity to live outside the womb is confounding because its logic is fundamentally flawed.
Third and finally, about two-thirds of abortions that take place after 12 weeks of pregnancy (and thus do require dilation and curettage, not just a pill) happen not because of fatal fetal or maternal diagnoses (which do account for the one-third of late-terms abortions that we tend to hear about from pro-choice advocates), but for the same reason that most abortions before 12 weeks happen: because the woman in question does not want to have a baby.
The opinions that you form based on these facts may be different from those of your friend. That is where conversation and debate begin — not where they end.
Empathy
Try to put yourself in your friend’s shoes. If you interpreted the facts like she does, what would you believe?
Most people on either side of this debate believe that they are fighting for something good.
Most pro-life people believe that they are literally saving babies’ lives. Many also acknowledge that the usurpation of women’s bodily autonomy is a negative externality (one imposed by nature or by God, not by lawmakers) of that positive good.
Most pro-choice people believe that they are often metaphorically and sometimes literally saving women’s lives. Many also acknowledge that abortion itself is a negative externality (one that should be available to women in consultation with their doctors and their God, not restricted by lawmakers) of that positive good.
If we could see the maddening restriction on women’s bodily autonomy and the tragic loss of fetal life, respectively, as negative externalities of each side’s attempt to secure a positive good it would make for much more productive conversations and much stronger ideologically mixed friendships.
And, therein, a much healthier nation.
Elizabeth Grace Matthew writes about culture, politics, and religion. Her work has appeared in USA Today, America Magazine, Deseret News, Law and Liberty, Real Clear Books & Culture, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and FemCatholic.