Georgia passed legislation to ban abortion (with several exceptions) after a heartbeat is detected. Here is one of my responses to someone who was heavily opposed to it passing. and also used ‘race’ in the discussion, which can at times be a bit hard to disentangle. I added a little bit in what is below, for the final post reflected a few earlier ones. The person I was responding to said that this bill was anti-women. She also pointed out that black / brown/ and poor people will be the most affected. Finally, she pointed out that using my religion to force other people to its claims was wrong. Here is my response.
1. You are pitting vulnerable women against the vulnerable in the womb. Why does it have to be an either or? Why cannot our laws reflect ways of helping vulnerable women who are pregnant and those in the womb who are vulnerable too? I just don’t think it is an either/or. It’s both/and. Can’t we find a non-violent approach to helping both?
2. You mentioned Christian ideals…but I did not. I actually mentioned science as the basis for why Roe must go. Moreover, I cited a heavily progressive and well attributed ethicist for agreement on that (Peter Singer from Princeton). Therefore, all you could say from my post is that I am pushing science (and those who know a lot about it) on others. Not my religion. Even more, I do not look at this as a religious issue. I look at this as a natural understanding that people are supposed to come to. Whether religious or not. Proof of this is found in the Right to Life movement, which has atheists involved as well as religious folk of many stripes.
3. As I said, there are many things the political parties do that are off the mark. I don’t always agree with everything pro-life bills propose. But, two things to note. The first is, I doubt the white people you pointed out specifically targeted black/brown/poor communities. That is assuming a lot about their intentions that we simply do not have access to. To be sure, you used the word “affected.” This may be the case, but I think it distracts from the point. One can use any socio-economic or minority group and talk about marginalization. In fact, the Pro-life movement often does the same thing when it points out that at least in the past Planned Parenthood clinics used to target black/brown/poor neighborhoods. The point was that black communities were disproportionately helping the abortion industry and lowering their population at the same time. Still, as much as those conversations have value, the distraction is that often this leverage on other moral issues (race) is used to control a distinct moral issue (abortion). It sounds really bad for Planned Parenthood to make a target market of black people. It sounds really bad of these ‘white straight men’ if what you say was part of their intentions. But that never gets to answering if Roe is based on outdated science or not. There simply needs to be a revision of that law in order to reflect how much more we know about womb life and fetology.
4. One more point about color and race. What if we globalize the subject of abortion and think along race lines from a global perspective? Large portions of the world whether South America, Africa, and Asia are opposed to abortion. Now, even this would not determine if it was right or wrong to have an abortion. But, if we want to use race to leverage this discussion one way or the other, then we could just as well do it against abortion.