Stacey Abrams Inadvertently Reveals the Pro-Abortion Problem

In a recent interview, Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams offered this thought about abortion laws:

It’s not a particularly unique stance among Democratic politicians; nearly to a one, Democratic lawmakers with national ambitions insist that it is always unacceptable to limit abortion in any way. But slightly more interesting is one of the reasons Abrams gives for her stance: “Arbitrary political parameters make no sense.”

Viewed from a different angle, this comment is actually the stance that most pro-lifers take on the subject: Arbitrary line-drawing about when an unborn child attains the right to life isn’t a coherent rationale for abortion policy. Pro-lifers often support incremental laws that are based on facts about fetal development, such as protections that take effect when a fetal heartbeat can be detected or when an unborn child has the capacity to feel pain. These rationales are compelling as a matter of messaging, to be sure, and there’s nothing wrong with supporting incremental pro-life policy if doing so brings us closer to our goal of total abolition. But our support for pro-life laws flows from our ultimate rejection of arbitrary dividing lines as a rationale for abortion policy.

When Abrams argues that limits on abortion are arbitrary, she inadvertently reveals that only one of two positions is coherent and non-arbitrary: The unborn child always has the right to life, from the moment of conception, or the unborn child never does. This latter position is the one that Abrams has chosen, for the apparent sake of consistency.

But there are two problems with her claim. First, she ignores that it is abortion supporters who are most arbitrary, tending to acknowledge the humanity of the unborn child only at arbitrarily chosen dividing lines during pregnancy — say, at the end of the first trimester or once the baby is “viable,” an ever-shifting line. Second, she doesn’t seem to realize that acknowledging the child’s humanity only at the moment of birth is also arbitrary.

Passage through the birth canal doesn’t magically bestow personhood or confer rights; the complete exit from the womb doesn’t make the child any less dependent on others for survival. All of the arguments for abortion would equally justify infanticide after birth. Perhaps this is why, for several years running, Democrats in Congress have voted against a bill requiring doctors to care for babies who are born alive after an attempted abortion. In their effort not to be arbitrary and to remain consistent, they inadvertently reveal the deadly logic of abortion: Any “unwanted” child can be killed, inside the womb or out.