Sander Bellman, 4/30/05 - Pro-life or Pro-choice?  We're asking the wrong question.

I am pro-life, but I'm also pro-choice. How can one be both? It's because we've been asking the wrong question. We've been asking, "Should we illegalize abortion or not?" This question locks us into only one of two very unworkable answers. But there is a third choice, pro-both, if we decide to change the original question.

Shouldn't the real question be, "What is the best way to address the problem of abortion?"  Making it illegal will not stop abortions. But simply keeping it legal, will not reduce the number of abortions.  Neither solution is satisfactory.  Because, neither of the two options address the causes of why women have unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

If we reduce the reasons that women end up with unwanted pregnancies, we will also reduce the need for ending those pregnancies in the first place.  If the demand is reduced, so will the number of abortions.

There is an excellent write up on the "pro-both" option at the web site for Pro-Both, Preserving Life by Promoting Choice. It makes fascinating reading for both pro-life and pro-choice advocates. It presents a logical and reasonable third choice that should satisfy both sides.

Its author, Jan D. Wolter, writes: "'Choice" and 'life' are not opposites. There exists a political agenda which could do at least as much to reduce abortion as illegalizing it could, and which increases rather than decreases the capacity of people to control their own reproductive destiny. This agenda is not new. Elements of it have been actively pursued for a long time with substantial success by people on both sides of the abortion issue. But these efforts receive little public recognition, and have been mired in the controversy over the legality of abortion. What we need to do is put that agenda on the top of our list. That is the way to be pro-both."

Contact Sander Bellman

Click to return to top