Andrew, I appreciate the attempt to understand the pro-choice person here. The discussion of primary vs, secondary vs. tertiary is interesting. I fear, though, that while some may say they think people shouldn't be allowed to use abortion as birth control, I think it's more common for people to express this sentiment without using the word "allow." Rather, I think many saymore vaguely, "I'm against using abortion as birth control." If I'm correct about that, your article is helpful in understanding and responding to the other version, what I'll call the "legal version." But it wouldn't help as much with what I'm claiming is probably more common - the moral or preference versions (i.e. it's wrong to use it as birth control or I find it distasteful to use it as birth control). I think the broader ambiguity I'm referring to here related to the very common "I'm against it" language is potentially present in all views about abortions on all sides. Pro-lifers say it and mean all sorts of things. Pro-choice people say it and mean all sorts of things. So, it's important to draw out precisely what someone meant before concluding that there's a contradiction. To reiterate, when someone is "against" something, they may mean this morally or legally...or they may mean it only as something that's distasteful to them. In this case, I think when people say they oppose abortion being used as birth control, they usually mean this morally or as a statement of personal distaste. When I press them on whether they would make it illegal, many are reluctant. So, if the pro-choice person says she is against using abortion as birth control, and if she means it's wrong or distasteful, she may be consciously integrating that view successfully with her view that abortion should be legal (or, of course, she may not be reflecting on it much, but her view on abortion as birth control would nevertheless fit together with her other view about abortion). So, I think you're right that if a person holds abortion should not be legal if used as birth control (for example, by supporting imposing some limit on the number of abortions one could get in a given year) but she also believes abortion should generally be legal, there is probably a contradiction there. But I doubt most pro-choice advocates mean their opposition to "abortion as birth control" in this way. Your sentence in the middle of your piece is important:
"Don’t use abortion as birth control" is a mere personal preference which a consistent pro-choice person would refuse to impose on anyone." Indeed, my suspicion is that many people do in fact mean their opposition to abortion as birth control in precisely this way, especially after reflecting on it for a bit...or after reading your post:)
Hi Steve, I suspect you're right that most pro-choice people would be unwilling to impose their opposition to abortion as birth control on others in any meaningful way. But I don't think it's bad for me to respond thinking about the legal question, because it's where I would want to direct the conversation. I think both the preference view and the personal objection (I think you said "moral") view occupy a middle place between thoroughgoing pro-life and pro-choice views. I want to make that middle space too uncomfortable for them to stay there, similar to how I would address someone who is "personally pro-life." I would try to push the preference view out of the middle by arguing that their preferences can't matter (basically, using pro-choice rhetoric against them), aiming to lead to a discussion of the no-exceptions pro-choice view. I would challenge the personal objection view by arguing that, if they think there's something wrong but they don't want to legislate against it, they're defending the right to do a wrong. In that case, I would end up talking about the argument I made in the article, maybe alongside a discussion of what sort of wrongs we ought to use state power to ban.
I appreciate the attempt to understand the pro-choice person here. The discussion of primary vs, secondary vs. tertiary is interesting. I fear, though, that while some may say they think people shouldn't be allowed to use abortion as birth control, I think it's more common for people to express this sentiment without using the word "allow." Rather, I think many saymore vaguely, "I'm against using abortion as birth control."
If I'm correct about that, your article is helpful in understanding and responding to the other version, what I'll call the "legal version." But it wouldn't help as much with what I'm claiming is probably more common - the moral or preference versions (i.e. it's wrong to use it as birth control or I find it distasteful to use it as birth control).
I think the broader ambiguity I'm referring to here related to the very common "I'm against it" language is potentially present in all views about abortions on all sides. Pro-lifers say it and mean all sorts of things.
Pro-choice people say it and mean all sorts of things. So, it's important to draw out precisely what someone meant before concluding that there's a contradiction. To reiterate, when someone is "against" something, they may mean this morally or legally...or they may mean it only as something that's distasteful to them.
In this case, I think when people say they oppose abortion being used as birth control, they usually mean this morally or as a statement of personal distaste. When I press them on whether they would make it illegal, many are reluctant. So, if the pro-choice person says she is against using abortion as birth control, and if she means it's wrong or distasteful, she may be consciously integrating that view successfully with her view that abortion should be legal (or, of course, she may not be reflecting on it much, but her view on abortion as birth control would nevertheless fit together with her other view about abortion).
So, I think you're right that if a person holds abortion should not be legal if used as birth control (for example, by supporting imposing some limit on the number of abortions one could get in a given year) but she also believes abortion should generally be legal, there is probably a contradiction there. But I doubt most pro-choice advocates mean their opposition to "abortion as birth control" in this way.
Your sentence in the middle of your piece is important: "Don’t use abortion as birth control" is a mere personal preference which a consistent pro-choice person would refuse to impose on anyone."
Indeed, my suspicion is that many people do in fact mean their opposition to abortion as birth control in precisely this way, especially after reflecting on it for a bit...or after reading your post:)
I suspect you're right that most pro-choice people would be unwilling to impose their opposition to abortion as birth control on others in any meaningful way. But I don't think it's bad for me to respond thinking about the legal question, because it's where I would want to direct the conversation.
I think both the preference view and the personal objection (I think you said "moral") view occupy a middle place between thoroughgoing pro-life and pro-choice views. I want to make that middle space too uncomfortable for them to stay there, similar to how I would address someone who is "personally pro-life." I would try to push the preference view out of the middle by arguing that their preferences can't matter (basically, using pro-choice rhetoric against them), aiming to lead to a discussion of the no-exceptions pro-choice view. I would challenge the personal objection view by arguing that, if they think there's something wrong but they don't want to legislate against it, they're defending the right to do a wrong. In that case, I would end up talking about the argument I made in the article, maybe alongside a discussion of what sort of wrongs we ought to use state power to ban.