Introduction
On June 22, 2022, The U.S Supreme Court voted 5-4 to repeal the landmark decision Roe V. Wade. Roe V. Wade had guaranteed the right to abortion until viability and was once considered a settled issue in the discourse of American politics. With the leanings of the Supreme Court shifting towards social conservatives, the repealing of the law has reverted the issue back to the states. States that have long been dominated by Evangelicals have ceased this opportunity to pass draconian laws that ban abortion in nearly every circumstance (even in cases of rape). In the upcoming weeks, abortion will be effectively illegal in 16 states with dozens of others in uncertainty.
The seismic shift in the abortion debate has garnered an unprecedented level of enthusiasm among Pro-Choice supporters with more intensive campaigns. Nevertheless, it is important that Pro-Choice advocates don’t resort to making ineffective arguments which only serve to embolden their enemies and alienate potential supporters. Throughout this article, I will present 3 effective arguments that abortion rights advocates should use, and 3 weak arguments that should be avoided at all costs.
1. The right to bodily autonomy
This is one of the most powerful arguments that form the basis of the ethical framework that justifies abortion. The right to bodily autonomy is an extremely important concept that is protected in civilized societies. In no circumstance can the state force you to utilize your bodily functions to sustain another, and there is no reason why this doesn’t apply to a women uterus. Forcing gestation of a women is violating her individual rights as she is held at gunpoint to sustain the metabolic function of a living being.
An opposing Pro-Life argument would attempt to minimize its impact by adding the responsibility factor. They would argue that a fetus’s right to life would trump the woman’s right to autonomy, since she accepted the risks of pregnancy by engaging in sex. While intentionality and responsibility are important moral factors to consider, it doesn’t explain why sexual consent translates to consenting to pregnancy, and why we need to essentialize the concept of responsibility into a binary framework. Some people conceive despite taking extensive birth control, and this is proof they did not consent to pregnancy. There is a myriad of reasons why someone might end up pregnant, and there is no objective way to attribute responsibility and what degree of responsibility is sufficient. In such cases, it cannot be considered sufficient to deny the right of bodily autonomy.
2. Personhood
The concept of personhood is essential to understand what entities are given rights as it deals with the idea of consciousness being a significant moral imperative. Based on scientific literature, there is ample evidence to suggest that a fetus does have the capacity to feel pain and experience a state of “consciousness”.
According to the Journal of the American Medical Association,
“Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.” The third trimester begins at 27 to 28 weeks from conception [1].
These finds were also reaffirmed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the United Kingdom.
“In reviewing the neuroanatomical and physiological evidence in the fetus, it was apparent that connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation and, as most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation. [2]”
Given that just 99% of abortions take place before the 21st week gestation period, 99% of abortions take place where the fetus cannot experience consciousness and pain, hence they cannot be considered a “person”. Since they are not “person’s”, the termination of them should not be equated to murder.
3. Accessible and Safer Abortions = Rarer Abortions and safer societies
This argument is based upon pragmatism and empirical evidence as opposed to ethics. There is significant data to suggest that access to abortion has led to safer and more stable societies.
While it may intuitively seem that greater access to abortion will lead to more abortions, the data shows otherwise. According to the Guttmacher’s Institute, abortion rates in the United States have continued to decline and went below pre-Roe levels in 2017 and were observed in all 50 states. They went onto note:
“Despite the continued onslaught of state abortion restrictions, particularly in the Midwest and South, these restrictive policies do not appear to be the primary driver of declining abortion rates, as there is no consistent relationship between increases or decreases in clinic numbers and changes in state abortion rates. In fact, abortion rates declined in all four regions and in most states. [3]"
The data is quite clear. There is no positive correlation to abortion accessibility and abortion rates, because women don’t “casually” get abortions because they can. Factors such as non-abstinence only sex-ed, access to birth control, and stronger social safety nets can be attributed to lower abortion rates. This is because women can take careful measures to avoid unintended pregnancy, while societal support is available to those who forego childbearing.
Access to Abortion is also strongly correlated with the reduction in both violent crime and property crimes and this can be explained by the consequences of socially engineering unwanted mothers and unwanted children. Women who never wanted children in the first place aren’t magically going to be nurturing, and women who cited unaffordability will be unable to provide for them. This breeds the inevitable cycle of neglected children who are disproportionately likely to become criminals and misfits in society. When abortion was legalized post-Roe v Wade, the following statistical trends were observed by a study conducted by Donohue and Levitt (2001).
“Our results suggest that all else equal, legalized abortion will account for persistent declines of 1% a year in crime over the next two decades.” Estimating parallel specifications to the original paper but using the seventeen years of data generated after that paper was written, we find strong support for the prediction and the broad hypothesis, while illuminating some previously unrecognized patterns of crime and arrests. We estimate that overall crime fell 17.5% from 1998 to 2014 due to legalized abortion— a decline of 1% per year. From 1991 to 2014, the violent and property crime rates each fell by 50%. Legalized abortion is estimated to have reduced violent crime by 47% and property crime by 33% over this period, and thus can explain most of the observed crime decline. [4]”
Now we have gone over 3 arguments that should be used in favor of Abortion rights, here are the 3 arguments that should be avoided at all costs.
1. “Women have a right to do what they want with their body”
This is argument is very ineffective because it assumes that there is some unlimited right for people to do anything with their own bodies. Regarding other applications of autonomy, it is very clear that we have limits as to what humans can do. You cannot use your body (say your hands) to strangle someone to death.
The entire premise of the Pro-Life argument revolves around a woman’s choice being “murder”, which is considered an “unlawful killing”. If such phenomenon is true, then it would be crystal clear that abortion should be considered murder, as murder is immoral. By not explaining why abortion has special nuances to take into consideration, you do not have a strong case that defends a woman’s right to bodily autonomy.
2. “The fetus is just a clump of cells and is not alive”
This argument is dangerous because it shifts the criteria of unlawful killing to “life” as opposed to “personhood”. When that is established, there is nothing much to argue, since the scientific consensus is very clear in that life begins at conception [5]. If creating life is sufficient to determine an “unlawful killing”, then all abortions (even if it’s 1 second since conception) would be immoral.
Additionally, this line of reasoning is counterproductive as it dehumanizes the fetus and the unborn. The Pro-Choice side is already fighting an uphill PR battle as they are projected as “baby killers” by Pro-Life supporters. It is important to reaffirm that being pro-Choice isn’t about killing life but giving woman a choice in their reproductive matters. By downplaying a pregnancy as a “clump of cells”, you are only giving additional ammunition to your opponents to paint you as the villain.
3. “Men are trying to control woman” / “no uterus, no opinion”.
This argument has a variety of problems due to several fallacies and because there is no empirical evidence to suggest that is the case.
The assumption that it’s just men who are trying to control woman can be refuted by historical trends and polling that has been conducted since Roe v Wade became law. It is very clear that the issue of abortion rights discourse is hardly a “gendered” issue as there are a significant number of men who are Pro-Choice, and a significant number of women who identify as Pro-Life. In some years (2019), the % of Pro-Life women were greater than those who identified as Pro-Choice.
According to a Pew Poll conducted in 2021 [5], in 52% of American women identified as Pro Choice, whereas 43% identified as Pro-Life. In contrast, 45% and 50% of American men identified as Pro-Choice and Pro-Life respectively. If you are to suggest that men should have no opinion on abortion, you are alienating 45% of men who agree with you, while vindicating the opinion of the 43% of women who are trying to take away your rights due to them possessing a uterus.
Apart from statistical evidence, there are several logical errors with this kind of reasoning. Firstly, there is no real reason why one must be the primary beneficiary to provide their opinion. By this logic, woman should never have any say on the wars that their country fights, after all it is only men who are serving on the frontlines. This is obviously ridiculous, as woman are also taxpayers and care about the overall impact it may have on the country’s wellbeing. Likewise, abortion can never be exclusively a “woman’s issue”, because it’s legalization or criminalization has significant impacts in the society that men live in.
Cited Sources:
Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence | Pain Medicine | JAMA | JAMA Network
Fetal Awareness: Review of Research and Recommendations for Practice | RCOG
The U.S. Abortion Rate Continues to Drop: Once Again, State Abortion Restrictions Are Not the Main Driver | GUTTMACHER
The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime over the Last Two Decades - Journal Article - Stanford Law School
Abortion Trends by Gender (gallup.com)
By: Karnan
Comments