October 05, 2024
I watched the vice-presidential debate last week between JD Vance and Tim Walz. As has been noted by other people, it felt in some ways like a throwback to a more reasonable time when debates were civil, and issues based. I certainly had no problem with that.
I took note of the choice of issues targeted by the moderators. In the midst of international conflict with nuclear powers, an inflated dollar, and a housing and immigration crisis, I do find it curious that the media has chosen to make abortion one of their pet fear-mongering issues in this campaign. Part of my indifference to the issue is 2-pronged: (1) I am happily married with 2 kids and gainfully employed, and (2) religion isn’t a driver for me to have an immovable pro-life position. In other words, an unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t ruin my life, it would be celebrated, and I am not tied to a religious obligation to a pro-life position. I think that lets me be (relatively) objective to the debate, and also exposes some of my biases.
Something that I can’t stop thinking about recently was an unexpected reaction I had to Tim Walz referring to abortions as healthcare. In retrospect, I have heard it referred to as healthcare many times, but this time, it triggered a reaction I’m still stewing over. I am not sure how abortion can be justified as “healthcare” in any meaningful way.
Before diving into this, I want to open with the generally accepted exceptions of “rape, incest, and the life of the mother.” For years, about 9 out of 10 pro-life people were comfortable with these exceptions, and I am aware that this number is in danger of falling, as perception of extremism on the pro-choice side grows. I would like to preface my opinion with the fact that I stand by the 3 generally accepted exceptions.
I don’t agree with Tim Walz (and essentially all in the pro-choice movement) that abortion can be considered healthcare. Outside the obvious exceptions, when your body does the thing it has evolved to do when it has consensually participated in the act that does it, that is evidence that your reproductive system is in working condition and health. Under those conditions, I would need to be convinced why that person would qualify for healthcare that undermines or reverses a healthy, working system.
It sounds like rather than “healthcare”, the word that may be more applicable to the conditions would be “cosmetic” operation, invoking something like a facelift or breast augmentation. This will sound intentionally crass: A cultural shift could make abortions be viewed the same as getting a septum piercing. Poor decisions got you to this point, you pay for it out of pocket at a private facility at market-price, and it carries with it a stigma that may impact social status.
This is not an advocacy for any kind of abortion ban. It is quite the opposite, actually. It is an argument for the removal of it as a political pawn by removing it from the slate of “healthcare”. There will still be religious zealots who advocate against it as violence and murder. I, however, am not God, and He hasn’t made a specific statement on the issue, so that advocacy does not move me. By not being healthcare, abortions should not be done in any public clinic that receives state or federal funding, absolving the zealots of tax-funding “responsibility” to what they perceive as sin, and implies that the recipient of the operation assumes responsibility for the risk of the operation. In other words, as always, the free-market fixes everything.
This opinion is pretty niche, and I’m not married to it. It’s mostly a thought experiment that most people on the left and right will have a visceral and unfriendly reaction to, but I would like to see this kind of thinking about words and meaning become more mainstream.
Jarom Reid 