Personally pro-life, politically pro-choice? Part 1

If abortion is understood to take the life of a human being, then it cannot coherently be treated as a private moral preference that the law should remain neutral about. Moral convictions about basic human rights—especially the right not to be killed—are precisely the kinds of convictions that law exists to uphold. Saying “personally pro-life” while remaining “politically pro-choice” implies that while one believes abortion is the unjust killing of a human being, one is still willing to permit that killing when others choose it.

That position creates an unequal moral standard: some preborn children are protected because their parents oppose abortion, while others are left unprotected because their parents do not. In every other area involving violence against the vulnerable, society rejects this approach. We do not describe ourselves as “personally opposed” to child abuse while insisting the law stay neutral. We do not treat slavery or genocide as matters of individual conscience that the state should tolerate for the sake of choice.

Law’s most basic purpose is to protect the right to life. When the law declines to protect an entire class of human beings from being intentionally killed, it fails at that foundational task. Opposing abortion is therefore not about imposing a private morality or taking away legitimate rights; it is about denying that anyone has a right to kill an innocent human being, especially their own child. If abortion is a grave injustice, then consistency requires opposing it not only in one’s personal choices, but also in public policy.