The language of choice
People who oppose abortion are often referred to as “anti-choice” — a label with readily apparent negative connotations. We generally self-identify as pro-life, but the term “anti-choice” does lead to an important question: what is being chosen? Obviously we are not opposed to choice in general — life involves making choices each and every day. So if we are “anti-choice” on this issue, one should ask: what is being chosen and is it right or wrong?
The fact is, most people are anti-choice about certain things, and that’s a very good thing. Society is against the choice to commit assault. Society is against the choice to rape. Society is against the choice to murder. Most people have no hesitation about being labelled “anti-choice” on these issues because we recognize that some choices are wrong. In the above examples, we see that choices that intentionally harm a human being are generally considered to be wrong.
So what about abortion? If it’s good to be anti-choice concerning assault, rape, and murder because what is being chosen is harming or killing another human being, we must ask what is being chosen in the case of abortion. Elective abortion is the intentional termination of an embryo or fetus. These embryos and fetuses are of the human species, since organisms reproduce after their own kind, and are living, since the life of organisms of any sexually reproducing species begins at fertilization. That abortion kills a living human organism is a scientific fact.
Granted, the pre-born are different from you and me in many ways. They are much smaller and less developed than us and they are in a different environment. But these are quantitative differences, not qualitative. How big we are, how developed we are, how dependent we are, and where we are change throughout our lives, before and after birth. What we are — human beings — remains consistent. Society doesn’t use attributes like size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependence to justify treating some human beings as non-persons after birth, so why should we do so for human beings before birth?
In the past, classifying only certain human beings as persons has led to grave injustices. We now recognize that differences of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or level of ability are not valid reasons to classify someone as a non-person. Why do we continue to discriminate based on age, denying the basic right to freedom from bodily harm to the very youngest and most vulnerable human beings?
There is much more to being pro-life than simply being anti-abortion. We believe that all human beings are people, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, level of ability, or any other attribute, including whether or not they have been born. We absolutely believe in women’s rights and women’s freedom to control their lives and make their own choices. We don’t believe, however, that anyone has the right to choose to end another human being’s life. In discussion about being “anti-choice” on the issue of abortion, let’s be honest about what’s being chosen.
19 Comments
The Martlet has an open comments policy and will endeavour to promote healthy discussion. We strive to act as an agent of constructive social change and will remove racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise oppressive comments.
Leave a Comment
Chloe Nov. 17, 2011, 8:15 p.m.
"Society doesn’t use attributes like size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependence to justify treating some human beings as non-persons after birth, so why should we do so for human beings before birth?"
Ummm... maybe because "before birth" the "human being" is INSIDE OF SOMEBODY'S BODY. Is that too obvious?
Jose Nov. 17, 2011, 10:01 p.m.
Yes, the fetus is in the woman's uterus but does that change the biological nature of that being? All mammals develop inside their mother's uteruses - that is merely biology!
Our society relies on the idea that when someone becomes a parent, they can't make a lot of the choices they want to - that's why it's called parental responsibility. If the pre-born are human children, then the same responsibility that parents have for born children should exist for their pre-born children.
fighting the hegemony Nov. 17, 2011, 10:08 p.m.
If a women's stomach was transparent there would be no abortions. Abortion would be recognized for the barbaric act that it is.
MJ Nov. 17, 2011, 10:20 p.m.
@Chloe: sure they are inside their mother's body (in the womb) but that is the environment they are supposed to be in at that age. And where you are does not change who you are, does it? Though pregnancy can be inconvenient and even very difficult in some situations (trust me, I know) what is at stake for the preborn is much greater: it's their life. Don't you think the more fundamental right should be upheld (9 months of pregnancy vs. life)? I'd also argue that when someone is dependent on us for survival we have a greater responsibility to ensure their well-being, not a greater right to do as we wish. Do you mind if I ask why you put human being in quotation marks? And if you think it's not a human being, what is it?
Meg Nov. 17, 2011, 11:48 p.m.
I cannot grab someone off the street and force them to donate blood or an organ, even if I will die without it. The same thing applies to fetuses. We have bodily autonomy laws for a reason. You can't even get organs from recently dead bodies without permission because it would violate their bodily autonomy.
Fetuses lack autonomy as well as rights. They are reliant on another person’s organs for survival and do not have cognitive ability. If they had rights as fully grown children do it would not matter because the person carrying them also has rights. Rights that would trump the fetus’s rights.
We don’t force people to donate organs or bone marrow to dying, fully-grown children because it infringes on the potential donor’s bodily autonomy and rights. We don’t force people to donate their organs, yet it ends in the deaths of fully-grown, autonomous children every day. If someone doesn’t want to allow their organs to be used by someone who would die without them then we shouldn’t force them to do so. This includes pregnant people.
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/66/254
And according to the UN it is also a human rights violation to deny access to abortion.
You can tell me I am murdering or killing a child for as long and as loud as you like. It's not going to make me suddenly decide "OH I DON'T REALLY WANT CONTROL OVER MY OWN BODY!"
Not to mention examples of how when abortion is illegal women die. Don't their lives count? Or are you only "pro-life" when it comes to fetuses and denying women their rights?
John Nov. 18, 2011, 12:53 a.m.
Chloe, It is inside someone's body because it needs to be taken care of. Maybe we should treat those that are 1 year old or younger different too since they also need to be taken care of.
MEG - At least you are discussing this on a sort of intellectual matter, unlike most pro-choice individuals, but this idea of bodily autonomy that you have seems flawed. You are right when you say that you don't have to donate your organ to me even if I was going to die, but most people who have abortions aren't going to die. Also, most of the time they are responsible for creating the unborn child in the first place.
If you shot me and I was going to die from your gunshot wound to my kidney, would it be your responsibility to give me one of your kidneys? I think YES because you were the one that created my condition.
On a side note, what ever happened to the moral idea that the best way to prevent a baby is to avoid sexual intercourse if one is not ready... do we lack as much self control as it seems in this era???
Greg Nov. 18, 2011, 3:45 a.m.
I think that we can show Meg's comparison to be flawed by asking one question: What is the nature and purpose of my other bodily organs (ie. my kidneys) versus the nature and purpose of the uterus?
The kidneys exist IN a body, for that body. The uterus exist AROUND a body, for that body. The fact that a woman can live without her uterus, but a fetus cannot shows that the uterus exists more for the unborn child than for the mother. The unborn child, then, should not be denied the very environment that prepares itself monthly for them.
Clare Nov. 18, 2011, 4:53 a.m.
If you do not have a uterus, I don't believe you have any right to dictate what my body can and will be used for in regarding to pregnancy. I am not an incubator, I am a human being with rights to my own body and my own choices.
Meg and Chloe, you both make valid and true points, thank you for that.
John: "On a side note, what ever happened to the moral idea that the best way to prevent a baby is to avoid sexual intercourse if one is not ready... do we lack as much self control as it seems in this era???" Stop shaming people for their sexuality. Sex is not just for reproduction, or have you never used a condom or had sex in your life John? If you can tell me that you've never used any form of birth control or never had sex, that comment may have some validity, but right now, it's standing at nothing.
Greg, I can't... I can't even start. I can't even. Also, I believe it is most likely safe to assume you don't have a uterus. Therefore, why do you think you should have any say on a uterus bearer's body? I say UTERUS BEARER, because not all women have a uterus, and not all people with a uterus are women. You will never be pregnant, you will never know the fear and grief that comes with learning you are pregnant and being face with a really tough choice. BUT YOU DON'T WANT ME TO HAVE THAT CHOICE. To you, I am an incubator, someone that is supposed to house a clump of cells in my body for months, even if it hurts me physically, emotionally and mentally in ways you can't even imagine.
Being Pro-Choice doesn't mean you're Pro-Abortion, it just means your pro people having the CHOICE to do what they feel is RIGHT for their bodies.
Terrence Dunbar Nov. 18, 2011, 6:19 a.m.
So what happens when the life of the baby threatens the life of the mother. Do you deny her the right to live to save the baby or do you deny the fetus. None of this is Ever Black and white. And I can see everyone has their OWN opinions, but If you claim that of a Pro-Life person and you are Pro-ALL-Life then what action should you take with this situation or that of similar ones? Not all life being born yields (even if we are just talking about humans) comes at an easy breeze. When will the subject of "Accidental interruption of someones life" become a topic? If you do not tackle this one then you automatically deem yourself to be anti-choice. What happens when the mother has Cervical cancer and also finds out that she is pregnant at the same time? would it still be a good idea to deny that person an abortion? And YES, we do have Contraceptives! I don't understand why we as a society deem it necessary to demonize the use of it or even to teach our own kids about them. Having zero knowledge about something like this may indeed be harmful to yourself but even more so to the Accidental child that is being born, More so psychological than anything physical that can be done. But I see not much thought went into that as well...
KD Nov. 18, 2011, 7:35 a.m.
I don't care what biological purpose my uterus has, it's still within MY body. It still exists IN ME. And the bodily autonomy rights of a fully cognitive, self-supporting woman come first. Your whole argument relies on the massive leap that maybe "life" begins at conception whereas the pro-choice argument relies on the fact that people should have the right to determine what happens with their body in every aspect. Pregnancy irreversibly changes a body and carries innumerable potential risks for women, a very real one being death, let alone mental, physical, and emotional problems, and add on all the social pressures and stigmas she's going to have to face regardless what she does. Pregnancy and parenthood reaches SO MUCH FARTHER than the nine month gestation period. And it's entirely up to the individual to decide whether they want to face that. If you personally feel that abortion is wrong, I do not care, then carry your child to term. What I DO care about is you trying to stop women from choosing for themselves.
Also can I just say I really love this kidney analogy whenever it comes up. You do realize you only need one kidney to live, right? By YOUR LOGIC you should be absolutely more than willing to give up a kidney for someone else, because hey it's not really going to affect you that much, right?
Meg Nov. 18, 2011, 8:02 a.m.
(I would like to note that although I use the term woman, in refering to the terms used by Greg and John, I acknowledge that abortion is not only a women's issue and that anyone with a uterus is included in my examples)
@John: You seem confused by my arguement so let me clarify. In the situation the fetus is the person who needs organs donated or they will die, not the mother. In the example you give between you and me, you would be the fetus who I do not have to donate my body to even if that were to kill you.
Also, since when is a child a punishment? You created a fetus now you must be forced to carry it? I was also unaware that it only took one person to create a fetus. So the woman needs to stay pregnant and suck it up and donate her body, because this was only her doing. Do we force people who get cancer from smoking to not be allowed treatment? Or people who sun tan? Do we tell people who ride cars without seatbelts that they don't get medical treatment because they were responsible? No.
Funnily enough, even if I shot you and you were dying? You still do not have a right to violate my bodily autonomy. (On that note, neither would I will shooting you but that is why I would be ARRESTED.)
On a side note, I'm not at all surprised to see sex shaming from the anti-choice side. Sex is not just for reproduction. It is for pleasure. The best way to prevent a baby is to not have one... do we lack the intelligence to see this in this era?
@Greg: Really? My uterus exists around MY body? Nope.
Last time I checked it was in my body, for my body. The fact that my body can produce a fetus doesn't matter.
My body can also produce cancer. Should I also be forced to live with that? My body can produce gall stones and blood clots and ulcers. Should I be forced to live with those?
If the environment a fetus requires is my body, and thus my choice, then it can be denied that environment.
I am also unsurprised that neither of these two addressed my statement about women dying when they cannot access abortion. Meaning two lost lives (by their view point anyways). Funny how that doesn't really matter to them. I guess only the "unborn" are important. Afterwards they don't care.
George C. Nov. 18, 2011, 6:16 p.m.
Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f'ed.
Conservatives don't give a shoot about you until you reach 'military age'. Then they think you are just fine. Just what they've been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. Pro-life... pro-life... These people aren't pro-life, they're killing doctors! What kind of pro-life is that? What, they'll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it?They're not pro-life. You know what they are? They're anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don't like them. They don't like women.They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.
Sarah Nov. 18, 2011, 6:48 p.m.
When abortion is illegal or inaccessible women and fetus/baby die (It doesn't really matter what you call it at that point). Case in point: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3194680.stm
Clare Nov. 19, 2011, 7:56 a.m.
No wants to address the article, because it's so full of holes and far too easy to just dissect and prove WRONG. Damnnn. That must hurt eh, Catherine?
James Doug Nov. 20, 2011, 7:17 a.m.
This article points out that labelling the “pro-life” group “anti-choice” is wrong because it is not always true.
Ie. Sure, they would rather force a women to carry a child to term, despite any medical concerns, rape, age, etc. And yes, They come onto campus with loads of disgusting images that they force into the public. -- but they don’t care if you wear stripes or dots, you can have a choice in that.
With that argument in mind, the Term “Pro-life” is also inappropriate. Why? I’m willing to bet that most of these students are not vegetarians. Perhaps we should slip images of the gruesome process industrial agriculture puts animals through so they can enjoy a burger. Plants are all technically alive as well, yet they obviously eat them.
So they really aren’t pro-life in general... in fact, they aren’t actually pro-human-life, as abortion is used if there are medical concerns and or risk that threaten the life of the mother. So in all fairness they are anti-abortion.
I would point out that it is unfair to call people who are pro-choice, pro-abortion, because thats just idiotic.
When It comes down to it, condemning others, pushing grotesque images into the public space, etc. Is annoying and inappropriate. If these people truly wanted to make a change, their approach is all wrong.
They should be addressing the source, sex ed. And since a good number of them are christians who go to churches with resources, why not hold programs for young and single mothers? be it child care, dinner, tax help, having a public health nurse come in, etc.
Laura Nov. 20, 2011, 11:33 p.m.
just a quick question (for curiosity's sake): if you consider fetuses and embryos to be young human beings, do you celebrate your day of conception rather than your day of birth?
Colin Nov. 21, 2011, 8:57 p.m.
@Clare...if it is so very easy to show why the original article is wrong...please, go ahead.
The vast majority of the pro-abort arguments (bodily autonomy, uterus bearing, etc) here are circular in that they all assume the very thing that must be proven.
It seems that the argument most favoured here is that the fetus is INSIDE his or her mother and therefore has no rights.
But since when does a person's location have anything to do with whether or not they have rights?
Canadian law currently allows abortion to occur at any time until the baby is completely outside the mother. If any part of the child is inside, (such as the head in partial-birth abortions), then it is permissible to kill the child.
How is any person's location morally relevant to the question of whether or not they can be killed?
KB Nov. 25, 2011, 6:22 p.m.
I am sick of this argument. I really am. It seems to go in enldess circles and never reaches a conclusion. So lets just agree to disagree, and come to a fair compromise: PRO CHOICE!
Horrible Reality Dec. 9, 2011, 12:20 a.m.
The fact is that pre-born humans are genetically distinct. It's that simple. When you abort a pre-born human you are terminating the existence of a genetically distinct entity. In my opinion you cannot deny women the right to manage their personal health. You cannot deny them access to health care - and that includes abortion services. It's that simple. Abortion is what it is. Life is cheap in this world, and abortion is only one example of that fact.