Roe v Wade is being overturned.

Anyone who cares about the legality of abortion has been aware of this possibility ever since the Trump-era court appointments pushed the bench ever further into solid conservatism. It was a specter haunting the confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. We’ve known Roe’s potential overturning was—or at least might be—coming for a while now, but that hasn’t made it any less surprising and horrifying now that a recently leaked draft opinion has confirmed that, unless at least one justice changes their mind, Roe is on the chopping block in the immediate future.

It’s a scary time (as a cis woman in the midst of her most fertile years, I know the fear well) and it’s tempting to take this time to complain. Which, to be clear, we all have every right to do—I’ve certainly been commiserating with friends in my same position, lamenting the state of the country’s political climate and the liberty we’re so close to losing—but it’s important to be careful that we don’t mistake complaints for persuasive arguments. Those affected by the loss of Roe have no obligation or duty to convince their opponents that they should change their minds—just living with the new reality is enough—but for those who do choose to take up this mantle, it simply isn’t enough to rely on those same arguments you put to friends who already agree with you.

The fact of it is, pro-lifers have reasons for their beliefs. No matter how weak, intrusive, or misogynistic you find these reasons (I certainly find them lacking in a number of ways), they do exist. As a pro-choicer, you presumably see the reasoning of pro-life arguments as utterly unconvincing, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are convincing to the opponents of abortion rights that you may be trying to sway. In short, making pro-choice arguments that don’t address the fundamental reasons for pro-life beliefs is no more effective than not making any at all.

Fundamentally, the linchpin of the pro-life movement is the belief that a fetus is, in fact, a  human being, as alive as you or I. Though there are those whose anti-abortion arguments may exclude this assertion and instead concern themselves more with a paternalistic and invariably misogynistic sense of knowing what’s best for women who seek to terminate pregnancies, the vast majority of those voting in favor of politicians who promise to restrict abortion rights do so because they believe each abortion to be the termination of a human life. To them, an abortion is morally equivalent to the ending of a life and is indistinguishable from the killing of a pink-faced baby, already born. You don’t have to agree with that—I certainly don’t—but you do have to contend with it.

Think about it. There are plenty of arguments that, though compelling to those who believe in abortion rights, entirely fall apart in the context of convincing others to agree with your viewpoint. The common refrain that “men shouldn’t have any say in the policing of women’s bodies,” though a perfectly serviceable expression of reasonable exasperation at power structures seemingly designed at every level to disadvantage women, does a far worse job as an argument to keep male lawmakers from restricting abortion rights. Setting aside the baked-in and false assumption that “male” and “female” accurately delineate those who cannot and can get pregnant, respectively, this argument also reads to a pro-lifer the same way something like “male lawmakers have no right to prevent women from committing premeditated murder” would to you or me. The fact that one gender plays a large role in making laws that restrict another gender’s actions can hardly be called a problem if one believes, as pro-lifers do, that the action in question is equivalent to murder. To them, it’s not a question of gender, it’s a question of preserving human life.

Similarly, the argument that abortion ought to be legal because banning it would only cause more back-alley abortions would having the same persuasiveness as the argument that murder ought to be legal because that way it wouldn’t have to be done as secretly, and the murderers are less likely to themselves be harmed in the process. Surely it isn’t contentious to argue that, though back-alley murder may be harder to regulate than murders performed openly and legally and that they are more likely to cause harm to their perpetrators, legalizing murder is far from the answer. So it should make perfect sense that this argument would never have a chance of swaying a committed pro-lifer.

For someone who believes that abortions are morally acceptable, but is perhaps unconvinced that the loss of abortion rights is that big a deal, these arguments, and others like them, can be effective. Demonstrating to someone like that that criminalizing abortions is yet another law that disproportionately harms women at the hands of largely male lawmakers, or that it will not prevent abortion so much as make abortion vastly less safe, may well be enough to rouse them to action. But to those who already disagree with the moral permissability of abortion, they can have little use.

To convince committed pro-lifers that abortion ought to be legal, it is not enough to decry misogyny or repeat talking points about bodily autonomy—you must either demonstrate to them that a fetus is, in fact, morally different from a full human life, or provide a compelling reason why, though they are morally equivalent, ending that life is still justified.

If this seems like a tall order, it is. It’s easy to see why so many inadequate arguments are common; it’s not hard to make crowd-pleasing statements that ring true only with those who already agree with you. The same is true of any issue; the bad-faith, simple arguments are tempting, and it’s easy to believe that they’re useful if you’ve never truly stopped to examine the views of the other side. Certainly, if your goals are to commiserate with those who already agree with you, or rally pro-choicers into greater action than they would otherwise take, then these arguments are effective. Those are both entirely reasonable goals to have, but not the only goals possible; if yours is instead to make a difference in the minds of those who aren’t already on your side, you’ll have to do better.

And doing better is, admittedly, difficult. It’s no wonder so many pro-choice talking points fail to address the idea that fetuses are people; it’s harder to justify abortion if that’s the case. But it’s not impossible, and there are advocates who are able to hold themselves to high standards of debate and still produce pro-choice arguments. There’s plenty of room to make the argument that even if a fetus is a person, that fact still doesn’t trump a woman’s bodily autonomy (famously made in Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion”). Failing that, you can try to demonstrate that there is such a difference between persons and fetuses that abortion and murder are different things entirely. But what you can’t do is make a case that rests upon the idea that the life of a fetus is lesser than that of any person without actually providing support for that claim. It doesn’t matter that you or I believe it already; the people at whom you’re aiming your arguments don’t.

Accepting the responsibility to make rigorous arguments that address pro-life concerns is not resigning yourself to making no arguments at all. Acknowledging pro-lifers’ belief in a fetus’s personhood is not concluding that they can’t be convinced so it isn’t worth trying. It may be harder to make arguments that actually address the other side’s points, but the merits of reasoned debate aren’t based on how difficult it is. Philosophy and policymaking aren’t meant to be easy; they’re meant to be rational, to arrive at the correct conclusion. By parroting the lackluster arguments others use, you’re not helping the cause or taking a stand for women, you’re just giving pro-lifers something to poke holes in so they feel vindicated in supporting the policies that motivated you to speak out in the first place.

Making sure your argument really addresses pro-life concerns isn’t just worthwhile for reasons of ideological fairness, which can seem trivial when real-world issues are at stake. It’s also a vital part of making change, convincing those who disagree with you, and supporting the pro-choice movement – the very reasons you’re making an argument at all.

Annette Hasnas
Annette is a contributing editor for the Voice and a former child.

More: , , , ,

Read More

Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

As a former pro-choicer, now pro-lifer, I respectfully disagree. There isn’t anything that you can say to a pro-lifer that will convince them that a zygote or embryo is less human than a baby or adult. We do not discriminate against humans for age or size. You also can’t convince pro-lifers that killing is ever justified. Nobody ever has a right to kill anyone, period, no matter how much they inconvenience you. If you have to do many philosophical flips and somersaults to make something sound okay, it brings more attention to the fact that it is incorrect. As a woman, I am concerned about issues that impact us, and although I can understand the basic argument of pro-choicers, abortions cause way more harm to women than childbirth. Abortion enables abusers, pedophiles and pimps, not just sometimes, A LOT. Abortion promotes misogyny, the hate of women for their bodies doing what women’s bodies do, which is procreate. It creates this expectation of women that we are just here for sexual pleasure, that there is no commitment owed to a woman you sleep with. I don’t blame women for abortions. Even when a woman chooses an abortion, and appears happy about it, I don’t blame her because she is a victim of the abortion industry. She doesn’t realize that she was lied to, and that it is our sick society that made her believe that her reproductive abilities are an inconvenience. Abortions are not feminism, they are the opposite, they are misogyny. It is such a sad sad thing when people refer to abortions as feminism, because feminism is so much more. Women deserve so much better than abortion. Make feminism pro-life again.

  1. Abortion is actually more dangerous
  2. There are ways and systems proven to prevent abusers from being able to use abortions to keep themselves safe
  3. Women’s bodies are meant for more than procreating
  4. Nobody is making you think that women’s bodies are only meant for procreating because I got an abortion, that would be your own fault.
  5. No, if there is not an abortion the father is still liable, that is what the law says, if ou ignore it that surprise is on you.
  6. Women are only victims of the abortion industry if they are misled or forced
  7. Reproductive abilities can be an inconvenience, like the nine-year-old who was raped and forced to give birth (so yeah, a little more than an inconvenience) and I am not even going to start about the negative effects of having kids on your body and career for women who don’t want kids.
  8. it is fine for women to not want kids.
  9. Yes, feminism is more, but it still includes abortion rights.
  10. That “pulse” in early fetuses (during the time in which over 90% of abortions occur) is the same “pulse” held by a few heart cells in a petri dish. Just so you know those petri dishes are disposed of. Fight for that instead, maybe. Human life too.
  11. The embryo or zygote does not have permission to use my body, s_x does not equal consent.
  12. let women be
  13. Again, your wording was very creepy so let me just say slowly: