Opinion
With recent Wyoming Supreme Court rulings and the passage of the “Human Heartbeat Act,” abortion and related legislation are front and center here. Now, to be entirely transparent, I am unequivocally pro-life. But rather than providing a robust presentation of the pro-life view, my aim here is to disarm several of the most common pro-choice claims — those ubiquitous on social media in particular — with concise responses, thus facilitating more productive discourse concerning abortion among the citizens of our great state.
It’s important to define terms so that neither party talks past one another. Disagreements and misunderstandings are often resolved simply by being on the same page. I’ll start by defining abortion in the narrow sense: Abortion is the intentional killing of a human fetus. Next, the definition of pro-life: Pro-life is the view that abortion is intrinsically wrong. With definitions in hand, I will respond to pro-choice claims, viewing none as ultimately strong or persuasive — a conclusion I hope you’ll come to share.
Pro-life legislation tries to control women
Pro-life legislation is not unique in the sense that, like all legislation, its aim is to proscribe or permit human acts based on natural and legal rights. By their nature, laws exert control over every domain of a citizen’s life. That pro-life legislation focuses exclusively on women is the result of biology: Women are the ones who can become pregnant. So, while it is technically true that pro-life legislation intends to control women in a certain respect, it does not do so unjustly, similar to the way conscription controls young men in a certain respect. There is nothing inherently wrong with legislation that applies to only one sex.
Legislation should control men’s reproductive rights as well
Mandatory vasectomies are a typical example to support this position. Pro-life legislation, however, does not target reproduction in general or a woman’s right to use her reproductive capacities to conceive. Rather, it targets only the consequence of successful reproduction, namely the creation of a new human life. Prohibiting men from being able to reproduce is not analogous to prohibiting abortion after conception.
Abortion does not impact men
Crack open any good biology textbook, and you will learn that humans are anisogamous, meaning they produce gametes of two different sizes and functions which, during reproduction, unite to form a zygote. These gametes are produced by men (sperm) and women (ova). As Rob Base explained in 1988, “It takes two to make a thing go right.” In this case, the two are one man and one woman, and the thing is reproduction. Minimally, then, abortion impacts men because a terminated fetus could not have existed without one. Additionally, men desiring to become fathers are denied this right when women choose abortion without their consent. So, while pregnancy and surgical procedures directly impact only women, abortion affects men and women both, and to varying degrees.
A fetus is just a clump of cells
This claim is true, but only in a trivial sense. Doing the heavy lifting here is the underdefined term, “clump of cells,” because it does not specify the nature of the clump or cells. Because the term is vague, we all qualify as a “clump of cells.” When the ambiguity is resolved, a fetus is an organized clump of human cells arranged in such a way as to compose a human, which is true for each of us at every stage of development. Referring to a fetus as a clump of cells is intentionally dehumanizing.
If you don’t agree with abortion, don’t have one
Here, the suggestion confuses the pro-life position as being one of personal preference — such as preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla — rather than a moral one opposing a human rights violation. It would be like saying, “If you don’t agree with murder, don’t kill anyone,” or “If you don’t agree with slavery, don’t own other people.” Neither is a matter of personal preference.
Hopefully, the initial responses to the claims above reveal how and in what ways each falls short to support the pro-choice position. Part 2, publishing Friday, will evaluate several more and arrive at the same conclusion.