Being pro-life doesn’t make me any less of a lefty

Abortion is one of those rare political issues on which left and right seem to have swapped ideologies.

An Evening Standard reader looks at in-utero pictures
An Evening Standard reader looks at in-utero pictures taken by British professor Stuart Campbell. Photograph: Getty Images

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 column 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 per cent 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 per cent of women, compared to 24 per cent 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 You - Gov’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 New Statesman 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.

Mehdi Hasan is an NS contributing writer and the political director of Huffington Post UK. This article is crossposted with the Huffington Post here.

UPDATE 16/10/2012 Mehdi has written a follow-up to this column, entitled "10 things I learned from debating abortion on Twitter" which is available on the NS here and the HuffPo here.

177 comments

phil tregear's picture

i disagree that this is an asymmetric debate. It is less about the sanctity of human life and more about the left /right split between the states obligations to upholding that sanctity.
The right would have us ban abortion, withhold sex education, restrict contraception, whilst reducing tax expenditure on the welfare of unwanted and congenitally disabled offspring. Furthermore, they would repeal the human rights act ( why, if they actually believe that a human being has a right to a life???)
The left, much to their credit, have an equal respect for the sanctity of life. But they have the intelligence and sense of social responsibility to actually have the state do something about it. ( sex education, contraception, early screening of pregnancy etc. Belief in the welfare state, support of the individual through the human rights act etc). That is "Taking rights seriously" not moralising to a woman facing a terrible decision in her life.

the rights position only makes moral and logical sense if, in withdrawing legal rights and welfare support, they also leave the individual free to choose and do not impose, through law, their anti abortion agenda. That kind of anarchy is not a state I would wish to live in.

FancyLad's picture

Your more or less demagoguing here.

The right isn't against the biological aspect of sex being taught, but against technique and method instruction. You know American fundamentalists and evangelicals generally have no qualms about using contraception (though this can vary wildly according to the individuals) but even many left-wing Catholics are against it. You just out and out made up the bit (or you picked it up from some fomenting pamphleteer), where you infer right wingers wish to withhold financial aid from disabled children. And finally, most purported human-rights acts are either misanthropic disasters, or have such broad idea about what constitutes rights as to render the term meaningless. For example New Zealand has granted the Whanganui River the rights of “personhood,” declaring it to be an “integrated, living whole” possessing “rights and interests”

It's fine to oppose ideas you find impractical or illogical, but leave the Reddit style incitement and BS elsewhere.

FancyLad's picture

You're

Whelks's picture

The world is unmanageably over-populated already. If a woman doesn't want child she should take precautions against pregancy. If those precautions fail, have an abortion.Nothing could be worse for a child than being unwanted. And, actually, men do not go through pregnancy and frankly have no right to an opinion, whatever Mehdi Hasan says. Just as a woman cannot prevent a man from having a vasectomy, as my sisters's husband did without her "consent" because he didn't want the large family that she wanted. They have since divoorced because of it. Just because you see a heartbeat on a scan does not give your proprietorial rights over another's womb. I used to respect Mehdi Hasan - now I see he is as socially backward as most Muslims, sadly. Everyday I teach Muslims English and try to encourage them to take responsibility for their family sizes.

Posh Tosh's picture

It is a woman's right to have an abortion, mine did to maintain her lifestyle and romancing in the bowels of Cardiff docks.

The only right a man has is to lose the choice for his son not to become a single child brat, which of course mine became, as was his mother, indeed his quick cure was to offer any woman/or schoolgirl an abortion if she told him she was pregnant.

He was of course correct, as when he plyed them with drinks to enable him to have sex, well it was their fault if they threw up the pill, or got pregnant through his active choice of never wearing a condom.

His mummy died two years ago through her illustrious campaigns to get anything she could, never taking precautions and had stopped me from being in her bed. I see one of the children he refused to pay for when the girl he got pregnant refused his abortion demand, he then said, "well I will not pay for it", he stopped working and found a disabled girl gave her two children and when she was told for her own concern never to have another child in fears for her health, she had to have the sterilization as it was not his problem and he would when the two children were two old to get child benefit, get rid of her, make another pregnant to keep his lifestyle going and that would see him alright for years ahead in none-work. He has done that within the last two years and the disabled mother of my grandchildren a wreck of a human in Caerphilly.

Every election he goes supporting for six week the party of family values and is a great moralist, even though he gets full benefits himself, goes nine-pin bowling in a team two/three times a week and has a number of nights he goes out alone on the prowl. He after all looked after his disabled wife, indeed she ran everything for him. But when she was a spent force in supporting his benefit out of the door she went.

I wish my wife had taken the choice to have an abortion when she was twenty and then at least that parasite politician and man of honour would not exists to leach and enforce abortions on demand. Indeed my rugby playing grand-son looks an identical copy of his sire, except for the fact he has a brain and morals.

Samb88's picture

You're not a lefty, Hasan. The only thing you probably share with most others on the left is a hatred of the West. You're just a Muslim. You're anti-choice, you're a homophobe and a xenophobe. Your bigoted videos are all over YouTube.

Rashid Saif's picture

I 100% agree. Have a hatred of the West throw in a dash of pro-labor/welfare state sentiment and you can turn a retrograde religious orthodox Muslim into a pseudo-leftist.

Pavlova's picture

At the end of the day, what are you going to do with a woman who doesn't want to give birth? Force her to?

PossiblyAnon's picture

Unless giving birth would seriously harm the woman I wouldn't condone abortion simply because the woman doesn't "want to give birth". At the end of the day that is a living being inside the woman.

Plus you can't really "force" a woman to give birth, it tends to just happen naturally.

Tes's picture

And here is the myth - women don't feel like having a kid, so they get an abortion.

The vast, vast majority of abortions (I don't have figures handy, but it's almost all of them) are carried out on women who *don't feel they can* have a kid. Either mentally or physically they cannot cope. It's a heartbreaking decision for most of them, and guilting them into carrying to term doesn't make them any more capable of having and raising that child, it just means you get to feel good about yourself while they (and possibly the child) suffer.

Lowering the limit to say, 13 weeks, works for the vast majority who have a termination by the 12th week, but the rest? At that point it's pretty much all about health risks anyway. Why make it harder for a living woman, who might already be a mother, to not die? Childbirth might be safer than it was, but it's still fraught with health risks.

Latest tweets