'Personally pro-life' but politically pro-choice?

The late Mario Cuomo, as governor of New York in the 1980s, said he opposed abortion but wanted to allow it as a matter of public policy. He pioneered the combination of “personally pro-life" and politically pro-choice.

Other politicians have picked up this position in the decades since, and ordinary citizens often express similar ideas. Many people are uncomfortable with abortion—and might even call it wrong—but don’t want to “impose” that view on others or pass laws protecting unborn children.

How can we effectively engage with this perspective in conversation? It’s helpful to start with a question: “Why do you personally oppose abortion? Why are you personally pro-life? What do you mean by that?” Questions enable you to understand exactly where the other person is coming from. Here are three possible directions (but not the only ones!) the conversation could then go.

A personal preference? 

Some people treat opposition to abortion as, effectively, a matter of personal preference or subjective opinion. They might say that abortion is wrong for them, or something they wouldn’t personally choose, but they don’t want to say that abortion is wrong for other people too. (Think of the bumper-sticker slogan “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one!”)

In response, you can make a distinction between (1) personal preference issues and (2) justice issues. In the first category might be things like favorite foods. In the second category are things like killing people. You could say something like this:

Let me share how I think about this issue. The reason I oppose abortion isn’t because I don’t "like" it. The reason I oppose abortion is that, whether I like it or not, I think it’s an injustice, a violation of human rights, like killing a toddler. After all, the human fetus is a living member of our species, just like a toddler is, and I think that all humans have rights regardless of their age or stage of development. You might strongly disagree with that. But can you see why I think unborn humans should be protected?

A religious doctrine? 

A related view is this: The pro-life position is inherently religious, and we shouldn't force it on other people in a pluralistic society. Cuomo himself famously made this argument, saying he personally accepted the teachings of his faith but didn’t want to legislate them.

The problem with the argument, though, is that the pro-life view is rooted in the empirical findings of science (which show the humanity of unborn children) and in a commitment to universal human rights. That’s why secular people can (and many do) hold a pro-life position. Indeed, they oppose abortion for the exact same reason they oppose the killing of other groups of human beings! There’s nothing particularly “religious” about it.

It’s true that religion can influence, inform, or motivate someone’s pro-life perspective. But religion has also influenced all sorts of other views (like opposition to racism or support for certain economic policies), and that doesn’t exclude those views from public or political consideration.

Here’s how you could begin to talk about the issue in conversation:

I understand why you don't want to legislate religious beliefs, like the doctrine of the trinity or something like that. I agree with you. But I think abortion is different because it’s about justice, not religious doctrine. May I share why I think so?

The role of government 

Not every advocate of the “personally pro-life, politically pro-choice" position treats the pro-life view like a personal preference or sectarian religious doctrine. Some just think that the government’s reach shouldn’t extend to the issue of abortion, even if it’s wrong for people to have abortions. (Often that’s because legal limits on abortion, they think, would have bad consequences—a claim to consider in a different article.)

But there’s a tension in this view. Usually, the reason someone thinks abortion is wrong is that it takes the life of an innocent human person. But isn’t taking innocent life the sort of thing that we all agree shouldn’t be allowed? Shouldn’t the law protect basic rights and prevent violence against the innocent? No one ever says they’re “personally opposed” to human trafficking, for example, but still wants it to be legal. You might make this point by saying something like the following:

I agree that not every unethical action should be against the law. But I think some actions should be, like actions that seriously harm people. I think the whole point of the law (or at least a big part of it) is to protect fundamental rights and prevent that kind of violence. And so, if abortion is a violation of rights, then I think the law should guard against it. What do you think about that?

Abortion is a public issue 

These different forms of the argument often blend together, and they all make the same mistake: They fail to recognize that the pro-life view can’t just be “personal.” It’s inescapably public. Human rights, after all, are entitlements. They call for the respect and protection of others and of society as a whole.

So, whenever someone echoes Mario Cuomo, be ready to ask some questions and to graciously make that case!

This article first appeared in the October-December 2025 issue of MCCL News.