Debunking Common Misconceptions
Pro-choice advocates often argue that lack of consciousness or awareness on the part of the fetus is grounds for allowing them to be aborted. This argument is flawed because fetuses are not the only organisms who lack agency or “awareness” of their own self-identity. Those who are in a coma, those with advanced Alzheimer’s, and those with dissociative personality disorder can also have the claim leveled against them that they aren’t in an adequately conscious state.
However, our society is advanced enough to understand that we help all people, no matter their age or location. The notion that some humans can dictate when other humans live and die is an abrogation of agency. The argument that consciousness is needed to establish personhood and legal protections on life is flawed because babies well into their toddler years are unable to speak languages or even remember much of anything; therefore, the vagueness of the time in which personhood is established should compel us to view personhood as established at conception.
Pro-choice activists often argue that utilitarian reasons are also valid reasons for overly permissive abortion access. Instances such as extreme poverty, war, and other unfortunate circumstances certainly exist however, the solution isn’t killing fetuses. Rather, the global community should work socially, economically, and politically to eradicate these dangers rather than ending the lives of innocent humans in the process. The utilitarian argument that we should do the greatest good for the greatest number of people is applied to abortion because of the belief that we are approaching Earth’s carrying capacity, and that high birth rates will 'break' Earth.
On the contrary, the Earth has enough resources to support billions more people—the actual problem is wealth and resource inequality that sees hoarding by a few, leaving the masses without adequate means to sustain themselves and their children. We should look at the demographic situations of Japan and many European countries, which have permissive abortion laws that compound the low-fertility rates generally, and we see how these countries have stagnated in growth due to a rapidly aging population. This means that newer generations have less people than older generations, which is unduly shifting the burden of the societies upon fewer people. Not only is that disastrous and against utilitarian views, but simply disincentivizing abortion and creating a culture of life would lead to population renewals and greater stability.
Finally, pro-choice advocates often forget that abortion under current circumstances is extremely detrimental to gender equality. India’s sex ratio is 943 females to every 1000 males, while Pakistan’s sex ratio is worse, at 925 females to every 1000 males. The cause of these skewed sex ratios is the prevalence of selective sex abortion. While abortion inherently is inimical to human rights, it is particularly despicable when done to further entrench the misogyny of patriarchal societies. As a lot of the world needs patriarchal structures to be dismantled for true feminism to emerge, it does not make sense to keep legal the ability for people to abort a female fetus. In places that have developed adoption procedures, families who are willing and able to adopt can help elevate the lives of many children.
Many critics argue that pro-life advocates do not care about the post-birth existence for babies, yet people like me do advocate strongly for measures such as globally enforceable child welfare laws and massive financial investment in underserved and underprivileged regions. I would argue that the criticism that pro-lifers should do more to offer protections such as condoms and birth control and to encourage safer sexual practices similarly has merits; these areas need investment and would benefit from a dismantling of cultural stigmas surrounding protection.
Reggie G. (COL ‘21) from New York serves as the outgoing Tabling Chair.
