Well, yes; there can be no serious dispute about that. But the substantive issue is whether the tendentiously-termed “pro-life” position accords with liberty, ethics and rationality. It does not. Those who deny the ability of a woman to terminate a pregnancy are, by definition, on the side of reaction and state authority against personal liberty, women’s rights and the ethic of the family.
This isn’t a legitimate question of incommensurable values or competing rights that need to be traded off. To insist that a woman carry a foetus to term is (it is no hyperbole to say) not merely illiberal but despotic. That has long been the demand of autocrats and religious obscurantists, who are often – as in the strict prohibitions on abortion maintained by tsarist Russia – the same people. And it’s despotic even if you suppose, contrary to science and reason but consistent with religious dogma, that the cluster of cells that make up an embryo is a human life.
It is for considerations such as these – its authoritarianism and heedlessness of women’s welfare – that, I believe, Mehdi’s case sparked such criticism, in which I join. It’s a small point by comparison, but his citing Christopher Hitchens as a fellow-thinker on abortion is not right. Apparently, Mehdi has had second thoughts about the prudence of doing this only because Hitch is not universally popular.
I didn’t agree with Christopher, whom I knew well, on this issue, but he understood that there were many circumstances in which it would be undesirable to bring a foetus to term (and said so, in God is Not Great, p. 221). That point is not made by Mehdi, yet it’s a simple, minimal and humanitarian truth.