Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Mehdi Hasan

GET UPDATES FROM Mehdi Hasan
 

Being Pro-Life Doesn't Make Me Any Less of a Lefty

Posted: 14/10/2012 10:41

Listening to fellow pundits on the left react with rage and disbelief to the support by the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, for halving the abortion time limit to 12 weeks, I was reminded of the late Christopher Hitchens. "[A]nyone who has ever seen a sonogram or has spent even an hour with a textbook on embryology knows that emotions are not the deciding factor [in abortions]," wrote the Hitch in his column for the Nation magazine in April 1989. "In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain... break some bones and rupture some organs."

It is often assumed that the great contrarian's break with the liberal left came over Iraq in 2003. His self-professed pro-life position, however, had provoked howls of anguish in progressive circles 14 years earlier. It has long been taken as axiomatic that in order to be left-wing you must be pro-choice. Yet Hitchens's reasoning was not just solid but solidly left-wing. It was a pity, he noted, that the "majority of feminists and their allies have stuck to the dead ground of 'Me Decade' possessive individualism, an ideology that has more in common than it admits with the prehistoric right, which it claims to oppose but has in fact encouraged".

Blob of protoplasm

Abortion is one of those rare political issues on which left and right seem to have swapped ideologies: right-wingers talk of equality, human rights and "defending the innocent", while left-wingers fetishise "choice", selfishness and unbridled individualism.

"My body, my life, my choice." Such rhetoric has always left me perplexed. Isn't socialism about protecting the weak and vulnerable, giving a voice to the voiceless? Who is weaker or more vulnerable than the unborn child? Which member of our society needs a voice more than the mute baby in the womb?

Yes, a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body - but a baby isn't part of her body. The 24-week-old foetus can't be compared with an appendix, a kidney or a set of tonsils; it makes no sense to dismiss it as a "clump of cells" or a "blob of protoplasm". However, my motive for writing this is not merely to revisit ancient arguments, or kick off a philosophical debate on the distinctions between socialism (with its emphasis on equality, solidarity and community) and liberalism (with its focus on individual freedom, autonomy and choice), but to make three points to my friends on the pro-choice left.

First, you do realise that the UK is the exception, not the rule? Jeremy Hunt's position is the norm across western Europe: 12 weeks is the limit in France, Germany, Italy and Belgium. Then there's how 91% of British abortions are carried out in the first 13 weeks. You may disagree with a 12-week cut-off but to pretend it is somehow arbitrary, or extreme, or even unique is a little disingenuous.

Second, you can't keep smearing those of us who happen to be pro-life as "anti-women" or "sexist". For a start, 49% of women, compared to 24% of men, support a reduction in the abortion limit, according to a YouGov poll conducted this year. "Polls consistently show... that women are more likely than men to support a reduction," says YouGov's Anthony Wells.

Then there is the history you gloss over: some of the earliest advocates of women's rights, such Mary Wollstonecraft, were anti-abortion, as were pioneers of US feminism such as Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton; the latter referred to abortion as "infanticide". In recent years, some feminists have recognised the sheer injustice of asking a woman to abort her child in order to participate fully in society; in the words of the New Zealand feminist author Daphne de Jong: "If women must submit to abortion to preserve their lifestyle or career, their economic or social status, they are pandering to a system devised and run by men for male convenience."

Third, please don't throw faith in my face. Hitchens, remember, was one of the world's best-known atheists. You might assume that my own anti-abortion views are a product of my Muslim beliefs. They aren't. (And the reality is that different schools of Islamic law have differing opinions on abortion time limits. The Iranian ayatollah Yousef Saanei, for instance, has issued a fatwa permitting termination of a pregnancy in the first trimester.)

Demonised

To be honest, I would be opposed to abortion even if I were to lose my faith. I sat and watched in quiet awe as my two daughters stretched and slept in their mother's womb during the 20-week ultrasound scans. I don't need God or a holy book to tell me what is or isn't a "person". (Nor, for that matter, do I take kindly to some feminists questioning my right to have an opinion on this issue on account of my Y-chromosome.)

Nevertheless, I'm not calling for a ban on abortion; mine is a minority position in this country. I'm not expecting most readers of The Huffington Post to agree with me, either. What I would like is for my fellow lefties and liberals to try to understand and respect the views of those of us who are pro-life, rather than demonise us as right-wing reactionaries or medieval misogynists.

One of the biggest problems with the abortion debate is that it's asymmetric: the two sides are talking at cross-purposes. The pro-lifers speak about the right to life of the unborn baby; the pro-choicers speak about a woman's right to choose. The moral arguments, as the Scottish philosopher Alasdair Macintyre has said, are "incommensurable".

Another problem is that the debate forces people to choose sides: right against left, religious against secular. Some of us, however, refuse to be sliced and diced in such a simplistic and divisive manner. I consider abortion to be wrong because of, not in spite of, my progressive principles. That I am pro-life does not make me any less of a lefty.

There are few issues that unite Jeremy Hunt, Christopher Hitchens and me. I'm not ashamed to say that abortion is one of them.

This post also appeared on the New Statesman.

 

Follow Mehdi Hasan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mehdirhasan

FOLLOW UK POLITICS
Listening to fellow pundits on the left react with rage and disbelief to the support by the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, for halving the abortion time limit to 12 weeks, I was reminded of the late C...
Listening to fellow pundits on the left react with rage and disbelief to the support by the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, for halving the abortion time limit to 12 weeks, I was reminded of the late C...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 565
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
01:53 PM on 12/12/2012
Well presented and compelling pro-life argument. I however am pro-choice with the caveat that I believe there is almost -always- a better option than abortion, and if ever it came up between my partner and I (though it hopefully never shall) I would argue against as compellingly as I am able. This I believe is a morality question, one that should be dealt with via education, not law.
11:33 PM on 11/30/2012
I don't take issue with your left right argument. Does it have to a matter of that. how about this 1) I don't think an unborn human is a person. Much like a brain dead human is not a person. They are not self conscious or self aware yet they exist within females almost parasytically. If its in you it is you and you can do what you please with it until its a seperate being. Thats not unleftie as its not harming another. Point 2 you eat meat you murder consicous self aware animals that think and feel pain and love but its wrong to kill an unsentient human. to me thats sick sorry. Its ok to say you dislike animals but you branded a monster if you detest most humans or most children. I do. Obviously i advocate proper birth control or if accident happens seeing to it immediately not dilly dalling around after 24 weeks but stuff happens. my mum had a planned pregnancy that nearly killed her when the doctors said it was fine they were wrong she was forced to abort very late on as she was very poorly. she planned it yet knew it was not right and not meant to be and had gone badly wrong. she chose herself I'm glad to say. shes not sad or remoseful and i wouldn't be either.
04:18 PM on 11/08/2012
I take great delight in reading this Mehdi, as a fellow leftie I have always found voicing my "pro-life" views as dangerous and opening me up to vilification. I situation I first encountered as a rather nieve student in 1989 at the LSE Labour Club. Unlike you my position is influenced by my faith as a Christian, but then so is my left-wing stance in other areas. I also know that there are very strong arguments without faith for a "pro-life" position. It grieves me that it is so dificult to be "pro-life" and a lefty and hope beyond hope that this can cease to be a left-right issue
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ResearchGirl
11:06 AM on 11/03/2012
The moral choices are not incommensurable. The moral issue lies in where the state is barred from interfering in the processes of an individual's internal organs. A woman is not a non-specific life-form surrounding a uterus whose functioning as a reproductive organ is the dominant "purpose" of that life-form.

Women are actualised, separate, human beings with full human rights to body sovereignty over our internal organs. Just as the state is barred from harvesting kidneys from prisoners to safeguard someone else's right to life, the state has to be barred from forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies where the fetus is either non-viable (e.g. pre-24 weeks) or after that period presents a risk to the woman's health or *becomes* non-viable. Gestation is a biological, developmental process and things can go wrong.

Women - unlike men - have BOTH a uterus AND a brain to operate simultaneously within a context of personal moral agency. It is not the place of the state to intervene further than it does at present in the relationship between any woman and her God or conscience.

Please note that this is not a "choice" argument, as if this was a "choice" about ice cream: this is all about the full value of every actual human being and where the state has to allow women to exercise their own agency over their own bodies. The law as it stands is biologically, medically, and morally adequate.
07:45 AM on 11/05/2012
Your "logic" also justifies rape. Should men not be allowed to do what THEY want with THEIR reproductive organs?

...Not when said choice comes at the expense of another person's humanity,

You obviously didn't read the article; you just jumped at the chance to belch out a few of your favorite bumper sticker slogans.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ResearchGirl
07:02 PM on 11/05/2012
I doubt that anything I wrote ever appeared on a bumper sticker. You don't appreciate that a nonviable foetus cannot possess legal personhood without redefining the entire body of jurisprudence of legal personhood.
07:10 PM on 10/26/2012
Thank you Mr Medhi - it is a rare and cheering thing to see one's own views on this represented in the media today.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Larry Motuz
More prayers, fewer preyers.
05:09 AM on 10/25/2012
Okay, let's discuss personhood, Mr. Medhi.

First, let me say succinctly, one's own liberty of conscience never permits denying that liberty to others.

When civil law extends to matters of conscience, it desecrates that sanctuary.

That said, while I understand that some truly believe that even a zygote is a person, the reality is that our identity and rights as persons does not lie simply in having a body or being a body. All organic life has a body, is a body, and acts out of a body. But human life alone does not confer any identity as a person, anymore than a body diagnosed as brain-dead is, because it is human life, a person anymore. (That's the other end of this spectrum of human life, biologically speaking.)

Does a doctor or medical team, on disconnecting that body from life support, commit murder?

Please think about that if you call yourself 'pro-life' on the grounds that a human body (of some form) is alive.

At some point in the development of a healthy fetus, I agree that it may warrant protection protection, but I could never agree that actual personhood is the reason we would give for offering it.”

If you have any reasons for claiming personhood for a fetus, I'd like to hear them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Calabrese
08:10 PM on 10/25/2012
Your statements reveal the key differences. When someone is "brain dead" as ahiry a diagnosis as that is - they are considered dead. removing them from life-support is not killing them it is recognizing that life-support is for those who need support until their body can take over again is ale. The technicians doctors & nurses don;t kill the person - the natural process of death is allowed to complete its course. In the case of abortion a human being that will continue to develop has it's life violently truncated.
Civil law often extends into the realm of conscience. Civil law tells me I may not discriminate based on race or gender, I may not beat or rape a wife (or husband for that matter). I am not "free to do those things" even if in liberty I should want to do them. Rather society sets up boundaries based on natural rights, among them life itself. Just as a parent cannot kill a child after it is born (though some philosophers posit the legitimacy of infanticide) it would be a legitimate boundary to say that a parent should not kill a child before it is born, since there is always a separate life to be protected.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Larry Motuz
More prayers, fewer preyers.
05:06 AM on 10/26/2012
It would appear that a moderator deleted my reply to you despite the fact that no one could have considered it either offensive or in violation of any guidelines re commenting.

Please read this comment as a continuation.

The womb is a biological life support system without which prospective development into a viable human being is beyond the capability of a zygote, embryo, and, until (generally) six months into her pregnancy. As for brain activity, it is until birth far less than that of many in a permanent comatose state whose life support is turned off.

Nor can I divorce this question from the active--not possible--personhood of a pregnant woman. What may exist possibly has no claim to any rights. We may bestow them, but that's another matter.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Larry Motuz
More prayers, fewer preyers.
05:06 AM on 10/26/2012
Part I

My point was essentially that my point was that having human life does not necessarily imply that personhood exists. Nor do I believe that the terms 'baby', 'child', 'zygote', 'embryo' or 'fetus' mean refer to identical realities.

Nor did I say anything about killing a child before it is born. Indeed, I said that there may be situations in whch the fetus warrants protection, but these do not lie in its actual personhood.

Historically, liberty of conscience has been beyond both civil and canon law. The examples you give have nothing to do with that liberty, for liberty of conscience has never extended to any permission to harm other persons. Clearly, we make rules to protect ourselves by way of law an customs.

And, historically--at least in Western civil society--civil law has endowed personhood to a human life only upon its first breath after which the person clearly has sentience and interacts socially.

I don't agree that that's when protection should begin necessarily, and I think most pro-choice people would agree with the idea that protection could start earlier, i.e., in the womb for a healthy, well-developed fetus that is viable--once it stands a good chance of surviving being outside the womb but not before.
11:43 AM on 10/23/2012
It just occurred to me that, in their fervent defense of my reproductive 'choices', modern feminism has determined that I ought not have any political choice. The movement that once gave women the franchise is determined to effectively disenfranchise prolife women like me for a position more women than men hold.

Ironic much?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
08:47 AM on 11/06/2012
It might be ironic if it was accurate but it isn't. The majority of women are pro choice. One in three women in the UK have an abortion.
11:32 AM on 10/23/2012
Bravo, Mr. Hasan! You are very brave.

All I have to add to this discussion is this observation - I am a young Canadian woman who is inclined to socialist ideals. I believe that in a democracy the state ought to be the mouthpiece and the hands which enact the values and ideals of the nation, and as such there is a role for the state to play in protecting the vulnerable and leveling the playing field. I care deeply about feminist issues like equal pay for equal work, maternity leave protections, equal power and autonomy in every sphere from the domestic to the political.

I am also prolife, Not in spite of being a woman and experiencing the powerlessness that pregnancy can bring with it, but because of it. It is an unjust and profoundly misogynistic society that requires the murder of embryonic children in order for women to assume a place of power and equality. It is a despairing and ineffectual feminism that believes that is is desirable and necessary for any woman kill her own developing child because her career, relationships, or health depend on it. Why should women settle for so little?

But, in spite of my innate sympathy for leftist values and my discomfort and dislike of what passes for conservatism much of the time, I find myself unable to vote for left wing candidates. I vote conservative when I can stomach it, and third part as often as possible. I am, in fact, disenfranchised.
10:29 PM on 10/24/2012
Well put - I write as a Brit bloke!! - as you've put the some of the complexities into simple form...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:12 AM on 10/22/2012
I'm totally OK with abortion up until there's sufficient development for the fetus to react to damage which would suggest 'pain', whether it's aware of it or not. I say that because there's currently no way to determine if there's sentience present in the fetus. This is an extreme position for me to hold.

I agree that the fetus isn't just another part of the woman's anatomy. I also think that it's something for the individual woman to consider for herself as far as any action is concerned and that her choice should be respected and honoured as she is functionally the most central element in the equation. An abortion at 24 weeks is 'less wrong' than forcing a woman to have a child which will create many years of distress for mother, father, child and community. If there's going to be an abortion, the earlier, the better.

Before a couple decide to have sexual intercourse, their positions on abortion should be discussed so they can decide whether to proceed or not. If it's 'casual sex' then the father's position doesn't matter anyway.
07:13 PM on 10/23/2012
How do you predict "many years of distress" with any accuracy at all? The rich man might lose his wealth overnight; the poor man might win the lottery.

Why the bigotry against the un?
12:17 PM on 11/10/2012
So, your argument is that abortion is OK before the child is sentient or self-aware?

...Then I suppose you support killing someone at ANY age - as long as they're unconscious... And SURELY you support date-rape, right? If the victim is unconscious, then no rape took place! ;)

A little note on "sentience":
Some people say that the immediate capacity for self-awareness and a desire to go on living makes one valuable. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Infants do not acquire distinct self-awareness and memory until several months after birth. (Best case scenario, infants acquire limited self-awareness three months after birth, when the synapse connections increase from 56 trillion to 1 quadrillion.)

Also, did you know that children can be saved as early as 20 weeks into gestation? First of all, no one is FORCING women to have children that they don't want because no one is FORCING them to conceive. When you say that killing a child is OK when it's best for the mother and father, how is it different from killing a born child if things suddenly get tough for the parents? When you say it's best for the community, I have to wonder if you're aware that you're basically pushing eugenics... :/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
George McAulay
Delighted to meet you
10:52 PM on 10/21/2012
The religious like this bloke believe they are being altruistic but basically they are just forcing their god bothering beliefs on the rest of us cart blanche.

If anything people should pray for the end to churches and religion in any form.
12:17 AM on 10/24/2012
Well, I would state the obvious - that you're a bigot - but I don't imagine that would bother you much.
10:32 PM on 10/24/2012
GM, not all 'pro lifers' are as you so poorly put it 'God botherers'.. I'm a Christian who has a fundamental issue with the term "Pro life" as clearly implies that the other side is by definition "Pro-death. This clearly is not true....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
01:19 PM on 10/27/2012
Probable, not all anti-choice people are religious, but the overwhelming majority are.
07:50 AM on 11/05/2012
Are people who support the right to live "anti-choice"?

We feel that every human being is entitled to an entire LIFETIME of CHOICES. We are both pro-life, AND pro-choice.

If advocates of abortion are "pro-choice", then advocates of slavery were "pro-freedom". Did they not support the freedom to take away entire lifetimes of freedom?

Advocates of abortion support forced death upon innocent children. The term "pro-death" isn't exactly hyperbole, if you ask me...
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
04:34 PM on 10/19/2012
In a perfect world, no baby would ever be unwanted or suffer from a tragic combination of defects that would make its life a misery if born alive. Equally, no terrified 13-year-old would hide her pregnancy under great sloppy jumpers until the later months of a pregnancy that could ruin her gynaecological health fur future, wanted pregnancies. Neither would women be raped and fall pregnant to their violators. But the world is not perfect, and humanity towards mothers as well as babies needs to feature. Apart from a brief spell in the hedonistic 1970s, I know of no women who saw abortion as simply another form of contraception or who did not have to think long and hard about whether to terminate a pregnancy. Mehdi Hasan, I feel, is allowing sentiment about the foetus overrule the harsh realities of some pregnancies.
10:22 PM on 10/19/2012
Brilliant post Musokkat!! Well argued and put....
12:14 PM on 10/20/2012
Thank you.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
sc29403
I only read comments from friends. :)
09:57 PM on 10/22/2012
Unfortunately, denying access to contraception will probably throw us back to the 1970s, and denying abortion will throw us back centuries. Too bad more people do not realize how denying these rights impacts a woman's entire family mentally, emotionally and financially.
12:26 PM on 11/10/2012
You know, abortion has been around for thousands of years, right?

Too bad that people denying others the right to live do not realize that they are supporting a holocaust. :/
04:27 PM on 10/19/2012
I could not possibly agree more, and I'm a bleeding heart liberal. My bleeding heart is why I am pro-life in all ways, from abortion to euthanasia to capital punishment. We should never be the arbiters of death.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
05:20 PM on 10/19/2012
Are you religious by any chance?
10:26 PM on 10/19/2012
I'm unable to follow the logic of yr argument. Are you saying that if a person is 'religious' then they are automatically anti-abortion/euthanasia/capital punishment?? If so you are selling many non-religious people who hold similar views short.............
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Larry Motuz
More prayers, fewer preyers.
03:10 PM on 11/05/2012
Thismortalcoil, thank you very much for your many faves of the dialogue I was having with Mr. Calabrese. They have 'made' my morning.

Larry Motuz
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
06:21 PM on 10/18/2012
The fact is that the experts on this subject are pro-choice.

The Royal College of Obstetrici­ans and Gynaecolog­ists has said "medical advancements have improved neonatal survival rates. However, there is currently a limit to successful interventions for premature babies which improve their survival rates. The abortion time limit should therefore stay at 24 weeks."

What's more the majority of people in the UK do not want the limit changed. According to the most recent YouGov poll, conducted just after the Conservative minister had mooted the lowering of the time limit, only 6% want abortion banned; 47% favour keeping the law as it is and a further 4% would support extending the limit beyond 24 weeks. 

Of those who want the limit lowered, the majority only want it taken down to between 18-20 weeks.
12:29 PM on 11/10/2012
So... Children need to be killed so they can CLAIM higher "survival rates"???

Here in the US, 51% (and rising) of the population is pro-life, and 41% (and declining) identifies itself as "pro-choice".

More and more restrictions are being placed upon this holocaust over here. It seems like we're just more progressive than you guys are. :/