Splitting the Baby
Nuance and middle ground on abortion
I’ve seen enough bad takes on social media for the past couple days to last a lifetime. Sadly, a fair few of those have come from people who I otherwise like. It’s been bad enough that I feel the need to weigh in on a topic that I haven’t ever written about (as far as I can recall): abortion.
Per the title of this article, I’m not going to make a case for or against abortion. Rather, I’ll present a case for the middle ground that, if everyone would stop yelling and virtue signaling, we’re basically already finding. But there is a clear need to write this article because so many people seem to be missing the mark.
Let’s clarify a few things first.
The Supreme Court’s decision did not ban abortion
Rather, the ruling says that there is no inherent right within the constitution and, as such, leaves the decision up to the states (or national) legislatures. Here is a fair summary of why the Court actually overturned Roe vs. Wade, and you can read the actual decision here.
That is broadly an action that actually limits the court’s power and says “this should be decided upon by popularly elected public officials.” That action could happen nationally - if Democrats want to put forth legislation to legalize abortion - or it could, and is, being legislated at the state level in varying ways.
As of today, we now have some states where abortion is fully legal and nothing has changed, and other states where it is completely illegal. Barring national legislation, which would likely have to pass the filibuster either way, it will likely stay with state legislatures.
Men and Women view abortion… the same
Another noxious argument is that the five men on the court overturned Roe v. Wade. This obviously forgets about Amy Coney Barrett, but also pollutes the debate about abortion with idiotic gender overtones.
The reality is men and women view abortion very similarly, with women actually being somewhat more likely to classify themselves as “pro-life”:
The fact is this: yes, men can have an opinion here, and actually view the issue quite similarly to women as a whole. Portraying the topic as some kind of “gender war” is ridiculous and a tactic used to avoid having to make valid arguments.
None of the laws being passed exclude life-saving medical treatment
Another misconception is that states are passing draconian laws that would require a mother to forego life-saving treatment in the case of a pregnancy gone awry. This is not the case. For instance, the Texas law that went into place bans abortion “except in rare cases to save the life of a pregnant patient or prevent “substantial impairment of major bodily function.”
Another misconception going around is that treating a miscarriage is/would be banned. This is also not the case as the law broadly differentiates that from an abortion where the fetus is still alive.
Views on Abortion
Okay, with those two points out of the way, let’s now look at policy. Handwaving Freakoutery has a great post from a few months ago on how U.S. policy by state would look in comparison to European abortion laws once Roe was overturned.
Before we get to the U.S., here’s a map of the EU’s abortion limits as of September 2021:
As you can see, almost all of the EU has a limit of less than 20 weeks, the Netherlands being the main notable exception. Most of these countries have the limit at 12 weeks, as the Handwaving Freeakoutery article highlights:
As you can see from this visual, this Roe v. Wade ruling means that the U.S. still has more permissible abortion policy than Europe, on average. That may change as states adjust their laws, but that is where things currently stand.
And by the way, this “middle ground” view of 12 weeks or broadly allowing abortions in the first trimester is where the vast majority of people stand. Gallup has polled people on abortion legality by trimester and the results have been relatively consistent over the past 25 years:
So 60% of people agree with legal abortion in the first 12 weeks, or basically the median European policy. Presumably the other 40% believe abortion should not be legal at all/only in medically necessary cases. But after that? Only 28% of the population agree with legal abortion in the next 3 months, and only 13% believe it should be legal in the last three months.
The Compromise
All this points to a fairly obvious solution that limiting abortion beyond the first 12-weeks of pregancy should satisfy the vast majority of people. Let’s look at how each of our constituent groups would view this:
For the 40% who believe abortion should not be legal, this is a compromise. That said, obviously no one is forcing any of them to get an abortion.
For the 32% (60% - 28%) who want a 12-week limit, this fits their view to a “T”. No compromise needed there!
For the 15% (28% - 13%) who want a 24-week limit, this is a bit of a compromise. But it would obviously be much more acceptable to them than a total ban on abortion, and it seems like a relatively minor quibble.
For the 13% who want no limits, maybe this doesn’t work for them. But this is a pretty radical stance, and as we’ll get into, “at will” abortions in the last trimester are incredibly rare. So practically we’re arguing about a very very tiny slice at this point.
This compromise would not actually curtail abortion much in the U.S.. Approximately 87% of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks, followed by 12% in the second trimester and only 1% in the third.
So when we’re all said and done, this proposed 12-week limit does not do much to reduce abortion, but it does fit the views of many Americans (and presumably many Europeans) as a valid compromise. It accepts the messy reality: an abortion in the first couple weeks where the “clump of cells” description is more accurate is more morally palatable than an abortion in the third trimester where a baby would be capable of living outside the womb. Even if these two things result in the same outcome, they are morally distinct.
By the way, there are several smart Governors moving forward with basically this approach. Ron DeSantis of Florida signed a 15-week limit into law back in April, and Glenn Youngkin of Virginia is likely pursuing a similar policy.
The issue does actually have many parallels to guns. You can restrict guns all you want (see: Chicago, New York, and more), but you are still going to have gun violence. Drugs too: making them illegal is not going to make your problems go away (and may even make things worse). Similarly, you can restrict abortion, but that’s not going to do much to reduce the number of abortions. Whether it happens in other states, other countries, or in back alleys, the results will be largely the same.
That is because these issues (abortion, gun violence, and drug use) are ultimately cultural. They will be driven far more by addressing underlying social and cultural trends and values. Culture isn’t changed all at once, it’s changed person-to-person and through actions more than words.
For those who are pro-life: accept that abortions are a part of the world and seek to change the underlying cultural factors that lead to abortions. For those who are pro-choice: accept that some restrictions, especially when the child someone is carrying would be capable of living outside the womb, are reasonable protections of life and assumptions of responsibility on the carrier.
And in the meantime, please, resist the urge for that big virtue signal and try to inject some nuance and rationality into the discourse instead.