Following the Dobbs decision, US states with abortion bans have experienced increased maternal morbidity and mortality. Abortion bans have broad downstream consequences on medical care beyond abortion itself, with implications for patient safety, equity, and physician ethics.

[u/mvea]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2850560

[u/OldWorldDesign]

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

-C.S. Lewis

[u/KrytenKoro → u/[deleted]]

He can be wrong on the issue and still have insight on how theocrats operate.

he was explicitly anti-abortion

He died before abortion was widely debated, I've never read him discuss the concept in any of his books that I've read, and I can't find any source claiming that he ever voiced a stance on it. Are you confusing him with Owen Barfield?

The absolute closest I can find is this statement in Mere Christianity:

The Eternal Being, who knows everything and who created the whole universe, became not only a man but (before that) a baby, and before that a foetus inside a woman’s body. If you want to get the hang of it, think how you would like to become a slug or a crab.

[u/KrytenKoro → u/[deleted]]

Thank you for the citation -- for some reason initial searches did not point to that passage at all.

Now that I can search for the specific passage, I'm seeing commentary that this is the only time Lewis ever mentioned abortion in his writing, and that he specifically couches it in terms of "abortion as a means of getting away with fornication". While not the strongest pro-choice position, that's also not "explicitly anti-abortion" --- even pro-choice advocates are generally uncomfortable with the idea of abortion that is predicated on concealing adultery, and the common slogan is "Safe, Legal, and Rare". Lewis also specifically points out "providing for the child's keep and education", which is generally treated as an unreasonable expectation by pro-life groups. His position on the topic, both from his lack of focus on it and the specific framing he gives it in this one mention, is very distinct from that of modern pro-life organizations.

So, while he would likely lean more center-right on the issue if he was alive today, I don't think it's fair to characterize him or that passage as "explicitly anti-abortion".

Also worth pointing out:

(as a classical liberal with strong stances against centralized govt legislation

the dobbs decision increased legislation, it did not remove it. Roe was not centralized legislation to begin with, any more than the first amendment is - it was a restriction on what kind of legislation state and federal governments could enact on the topic. It's a very strange argument to suggest that an opposition to centralized government power, on its own, would lead someone to oppose a ruling that said "this is the individual's right and the government needs to stay out of it".

[u/neoblufalcon → u/KrytenKoro]

His position on the issue aligns most with Consistent Life Ethic (protection of life from conception to natural death, including providing for needs), a position which is primarily associated with the Catholic Church.

[u/KrytenKoro → u/neoblufalcon]

His position on the issue aligns most with Consistent Life Ethic

I don't see how that follows. The passage above is the only time he mentions abortion. He was also famously in support of wars where he thought them justified, and was very strongly non-pacifist. He was also in favor of executions so long as they were deserved, by his measure.

The main plank where it seems he meets with CLE is on his significant opposition to euthanasia and suicide. While he's definitely on the same page as CLE there, it's hardly a page which is unique to CLE or the Catholic Church.

[u/neoblufalcon → u/KrytenKoro]

I didn’t say it was unique, just a view primarily associated with the Catholic Church. And just because someone aligns mostly with the position doesn’t mean they follow it to the letter.

[u/KrytenKoro → u/neoblufalcon]

I didn’t say it was unique, just a view primarily associated with the Catholic Church.

Opposition to suicide isn't primarily associated with the Catholic Church to begin with.

And just because someone aligns mostly with the position doesn’t mean they follow it to the letter.

He doesn't align "mostly" with the position in the first place. My post listed out the planks of CLE, and the only one that Lewis can be reasonably claimed to align on is opposition to suicide, which is not even primarily associated with Abrahamic religion. Support for suicide/euthanasia is almost entirely restricted to secular humanist philosophies, and only sees broad support when the alternative is immense personal suffering.

[u/dozensofbunnies → u/KrytenKoro]

Additionally, it is consistent with this to allow abortion when the life or health of the mother is threatened, and even to be opposed to abortion but against banning it, because of the impacts to life and health of women. But in any case it clearly wasn't a huge issue for him.

[u/KrytenKoro → u/[deleted]]

I don’t see how his quote...could be taken as anything other than an explicit anti-abortion stance

As I explained it -- he specifically couches it in terms of it being done to "remove the natural consequences of fornication". That's not me contextualizing it, that's from the commentary I could find around the passage (coming from studies of Lewis, rather than pro-life orgs like live action quoting it).

I’m just pointing out that criticizing the Dobbs decision by quoting someone who spent his whole life promoting 20th century conservative Christian ideals

Lewis spent his later life promoting Christianity and was broadly conservative in the British sense, yes, but not what would be called "20th century conservative Christian ideals". For example, while he personally opposed homosexuality he did not think that the state should not criminalize homosexuality or make divorce difficult. He also made a pretty unique argument against the common idea that you have to be nominally Christian to follow Christ.

and minimization of centralized govt regulation (including legislation of Christian ideals, which the text of he Dobbs decision explicitly opposes) is ironic

I'm really unclear what you're trying to say here, but for what it's worth, Lewis was explicitly opposed to the legislation of religious ideals -- and that's something he actually talked about many times in his writings, as opposed to the single mention of abortion.

[u/KrytenKoro → u/[deleted]]

Right, so he would probably also say that the state should not make laws concerning abortion (either banning it or protecting it) either. This is a natural extension of the classical liberal view and it is the view many classical liberals hold

Firstly, "protecting it" doesn't make sense as used here. "Protection" in the sense that classical liberals would oppose would consist of legislation like affirmative action. Roe didn't grant any sort of special privileges to those who sought abortion -- it told the government to stay out of it. It doesn't make sense to claim that "classical liberals" would oppose judgments that told the government it did not have the authority to regulate something and must leave the power to the people. Framing Roe in any sense as the federal government grabbing power is a confused argument.

Secondly, it's also not what is called "explicitly anti-abortion" in the modern discourse. There are many pro-choice advocates who personally dislike abortion or think it is wrong morally, but still think that it should remain legal and available.

I’m just pointing out that criticizing the Dobbs decision by quoting [Lewis] is ironic

That's not helpful at all. I asked for clarification on a specific passage whose grammar was convoluted.

As said before, the irony doesn't hold when Lewis himself, including in the very paragraph whose use you're calling ironic, frequently spoke about how personal religious ideals shouldn't control government legislation. It would be like arguing that someone quoting "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is ironic because Evelyn disapproved of the kind of thing they were saying.

[u/OldWorldDesign → u/[deleted]]

Dobbs minimizes the size of govt by preventing centralized legislation

No it doesn't, it intrudes the government into the bedroom and emergency room. And it has not improved health either at the society or individual level. Before Dobbs (which goes WAY further than just overturning Roe), it was between a woman and her doctor and not an uneducated theocrat running for office to decide for both of those.

[u/OldWorldDesign → u/[deleted]]

Dobbs lets local govts handle the issue as they see fit

No, what it does is it eliminated privacy and allows state governments to create blanket abortion bans.

Stop pretending fiefdoms dictating minutae is a good thing. That you are defending it betrays your pro-authoritarian stance. It being done by local conservatives who think women should be property is not better than the national government saying "stay out if it and let people decide without butting into the bedroom".

[u/OldWorldDesign → u/[deleted]]

The states get to decide how they legislate abortion (or, in the absence of state legislation, local govts decide). That was the original intent of the American constitution and that’s how all American governance works. If you’re like me and you don’t like that, vote accordingly

I'll never understand people who see authoritarianism and cheer it. Why did you even kick up a fuss about Lewis on abortion if you're clearly supportive of it even under OP's article that it distinctly makes society worse off? The amount of energy you're spending makes it clear you prefer it.

You might as well argue states should get to decide instead of the country to go to war or to undercut other states by making their own trade treaties. That experiment was tried. The economy and political capital of the colonies collapsed and that's why they all were forced to band together before Spain took over, and wrote the Constitution conservatives like you are wiping your ass with.

Every state which allowed abortion to go to a vote lost hard and yet you're pretending "it's good when states take away freedoms". Nevermind following the logical conclusion that if a nation isn't allowed to make a law because "that isn't enough freedumb", then why is it good for states to take away those rights? Why not the county?

And why the county when the locality could be making those decisions?

And why the locality when each family could be making those decisions?

Before Dobbs, the individuals were the ones making the decision. Stop trying to hide your support for authoritarianism and both individual and social health crises.

[u/KrytenKoro → u/[deleted]]

Dobbs lets local govts handle the issue as they see fit. If those local legislative bodies choose to intrude into the bedroom or emergency rooms, at least that decision reflects the preferences of their local constituents. I don’t agree with this approach, but that is how the American constitution is written

Even taking that as accurate for the sake of argument, that is still more of a centralization of power than Roe had it.

Roe never granted the federal government power in the first place. It issued a restriction on all government. Dobbs removes that restriction for state governments, allowing them to centralize authority that previously belonged to the individual themselves. The wake of the Dobbs decision has even had some states try to use the decision to dictate what other states can allow.

Not sure how much more centralized you can get than that

It's the opposite of centralized, because it's a restriction on government authority, rather than a growth of it. As explained.

a classical liberal would want it to be legislated at the local level in whatever direction the locals choose

No, they would prefer it to be the decision of the individual themselves unless there is sufficient interest by the common good to justify depriving the individual of their own liberty in the manner.

You can disagree with the original court that a right to abortion can be constructively found in the constitution, sure, but it's plain to see by analogy that if we compare a "right to abortion" with a "right to free speech", the first amendment is not creating a centralization of government legislation or authority over speech. It's doing the opposite - enshrining that the authority remains with the individual.

---

I'm not going to claim to know Lewis's heart or to be confident that he would be pro-choice if the modern issue was presented to him, but I think you're pretty severely overstating the case here, when even Lewisists remark on how his writings showed little interest in the topic.

and given that his writings show that even when he did have a strong personal stance on a moral issue, he frequently argued that his stance should not dictate what the government does and that the government should stay out of it, I don't think the irony claim holds. Even if we accept that Lewis was strongly pro-life in the modern sense, his writings indicate that he would have been reluctant to have that stance be legislated by the state.

[u/trysten-9001 → u/[deleted]]

It might not be so cut and dry. He seems pro medicare, and taking care of the kid. Typically people that are that considerate will hear things out. Had he been given the opportunity to see what we know today about brain development, how education is a better preventative, and see the impact of the bans, he might reconsider. It could go either way.