There are a lot of people out there hawking ways to reduce the stress in our lives. “Are you stressed? Are you tense?” the self-help gurus ask in unctuous tones. (Or in unctuous font, when their pitch comes in a printed form.) The relief they offer has immense appeal… though in practice it’s seldom all they claim it will be.
But some tensions are constructive. They may even be beneficial. Certain tensions over particular issues in public policy are among them. One of those is the battlefield-like tension between the pro-life and pro-choice camps in the abortion tussle.
Make no mistake: this issue is inherently contentious and won’t be resolved any time soon. At this time, whether abortions are legal, and to what extent, has been relegated to the decisions of state legislatures. That’s produced a patchwork of laws and restrictions, about the details of which I’m not fully informed. Many see that as a problem.
In point of fact, it’s because of the varying populations of the states. Nothing can be done about that, so for the present it’s as it must be. But the tension among the pro-life states, the pro-choice states, and those in a compromise camp is considerable. We must ask whether it should be fought down as near to zero as possible, or intensified to the highest degree consistent with public order.
There’s no arguing the matter any more. Pro-lifers take a hard-line position that an unborn child has a right to life. Pro-choicers take a hard-line position about a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. Those two positions are irreconcilable. As for the “legalize it until week XX, or a detectable fetal heartbeat, or the next full moon” crowd, they have their own, entirely separate criteria that fails to address either of the positions of the more absolute camps. That renders it impossible to argue with them, as well.
Just so there’s no misapprehension about it, I’m pro-life. But I also have respect for what’s possible at any given time. So when Harrison Butker exhorts J. D. Vance to “defend the unborn:”
Harrison Butker has again spoken out about his religious beliefs as it relates to women’s reproductive rights.
The Kansas City Chiefs kicker on Friday wrote on X that he “implore[s]” former President Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, to defend the unborn.
Butker made the post in apparent disagreement with the former president, who said in a Truth Social post that his “Administration will be great for women and their reproductive rights.”
… I’m with him. Note, however, this comment on the article:
I am pro life, but also a realist. Let’s work toward ending late term abortions, setting a realistic restriction point that we can reach compromise on. Let’s have compassion towards those facing this issue, and perhaps opinions, attitudes and feelings about abortion will change. Let’s save as many babies as possible at this time, instead of fighting over complete bans vs free and unlimited abortion. Neither side is going to agree on 100%. Meanwhile, we continue to lose precious lives.
I’m with him, too… most of the way. The critical thing is to save lives. It’s not to “win” in any tawdry political sense, especially if in going for the all-out “win” we’re more likely to reap an all-out “loss.” But there is a note in his comment that bears closer analysis:
…setting a realistic restriction point that we can reach compromise on.
How does a pro-lifer compromise on the right to life? “Let’s approve a moderate amount of human slaughter” — ? For that matter, how could a pro-choicer compromise on the right to control one’s own body? “We’ll only invade your person when it’s really important” — ? I’m sure the Gentle Readers of Liberty’s Torch can see the problems there, whether as positions in argument or as a standard for black-letter law.
Here we have a tension that’s actually a good thing. While it means ongoing “combat” between pro-life and pro-choice, that tug of war is vitally necessary to America’s character as a nation of laws founded on recognized rights. Granted that it won’t be settled soon. It’s the tension – the stress between those two incompatible positions – that matters meta-legally.
The insistence that every law must be founded on recognized, well-defined rights was what once made our polity unique. The Constitution itself, even before the ratification of the Bill of Rights, was designed that way. Article I placed restrictions on both the federal government and the state governments that would forbid the invasion of individuals’ rights. Yes, there were a few chinks in the edifice, particularly as regards taxation. But the attempt was sincere.
Meanwhile, let’s save as many lives as we can. Finally, ponder this bit of thinking from twenty years ago:
Some years ago, a friend named Paul, who was very active in the pro-life movement, confided his frustrations and his accumulating despair to your Curmudgeon, knowing him to be a kindred spirit. He’d spent hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours on conventional pro-life activism, and had reaped next to nothing from it. He was uncertain that he’d influenced anyone’s views; he was all but certain that he’d saved no lives.
Your Curmudgeon mulled it over for a while and said, “Why not go private?”
“What do you mean?” Paul said.
“Well, if saving lives is what you want to do, why bother with politics? Politics saves no lives. You’ve proved that to my satisfaction. Become a pregnancy counselor. No, wait: become a pregnancy counselor at an abortion clinic.”
For a good thirty seconds, Paul was too stunned to respond. His eyes bulged out most impressively. His mouth worked a bit, but nothing intelligible came out.
“Think about it,” your Curmudgeon said. “To save a life, that life has to be in danger, doesn’t it? Where do women take their unborn babies that puts them in danger?”
It was then that your Curmudgeon learned the meaning of the cliche “a light dawned in his eyes.”
That conversation actually took place. I wrote about it at Eternity Road in 2004. It still strikes me as the best way to position oneself to save lives, though I’m aware that not everyone can act on it as did my friend Paul.
