Basics of Pro-Choice and Pro-Life
First, pro-choice and pro-life are commonly misunderstood.
Pro-choice is supporting a woman’s full range of reproductive rights, the right to control her own body and make choices about her reproductive health, including abortion. It’s her choice, not the government, her spouse, or a religious group. Pro-choice focuses on the bodily autonomy/sovereignty of the woman. The majority of Americans consider themselves pro-choice and a clear majority support abortion as an option(Gallup, Ipsos, Marist).
As a woman, I have the right to make decisions about my body, in the same way men do. If you never personally want an abortion, you don’t get one. If you are struggling with infertility, you can seek medical treatment. If you want a hysterectomy, you should be able to get one without your husband’s permission. If you suffer the loss of a child you wanted, you can mourn, without your rights being threatened by politicians.
Pro-life has focused on outlawing abortion by giving the fetus personhood, which would also criminalize miscarriage. Around 1 in 4 women will have an abortion in their life and up to 1 in 4 women experience a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). However, 63% of Americans, (including pro-life) believe abortion is acceptable in cases of rape and incest when the bodily autonomy of the woman has been violated. Additionally, a majority of pro-lifers are for the death penalty and against governmental systems to support families. Pro-life focuses on the fetuses’ right to life. Well, the right to be born.
The debate is on the woman’s bodily autonomy vs. the fetus’ right to be born. Trying to define an embryo or fetus as a person is a legal tactic used by the far-right and religious fanatics to bring it under current laws. So many conservative states keep trying to define “person” as “any human being from the beginning of biological development to natural death”. Luckily, a majority of them have failed fantastically. And almost all of these bills are linked to religious groups. Last time I checked, your religious beliefs are just that, yours.
The “Life” Argument
Many pro-birthers cite this study that “empirically” states life begins at fertilization. But as usual, they are misusing it and only read the abstract.
In this 2018 study, 81% of participants (skewed pro-choice and women) agreed biologists are the best to answer ‘When does a human’s life begin?’, over religious leaders, voters, supreme court (sample size 2,600). That same study found that 95% of biologists agree life begins at fertilization (sample size 5,500 biologists from various backgrounds, political views, and specialties).
The question of ‘When does a human’s life begin?’ has two primary interpretations: the descriptive view (i.e., when is a fetus classified as a human) and the normative view (i.e., when ought a fetus be recognized as a person worthy of ethical and legal consideration). Both sides have conflated these two views. The challenge is we understand the question differently. These interpretations matter, as most legal doctrine talks about “life”, but does not clarify the descriptive or the normative view and often uses soft words like “viability”.
The biologist's questions were statements of the descriptive view (2 implicit, 1 explicit, and 1 open-ended). As you can see the data started to drift towards political views in the explicit statement. However, it is clear that 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human’s life begins at fertilization (Q1-Q3), as the descriptive view.
Furthermore, the fact they said it begins at fertilization also challenges the “pro-birthers” position, as many believe it begins at conception. This can get even more complicated as implantation in a woman’s uterus (conception) is required for an embryo to grow. If life begins at fertilization and it was legally classified as such, then these “lives” would be “dying” quite often as many women have a chemical pregnancy or miscarriage early on.
This paper does not argue that the finding ‘a fetus is biologically classified as a human at fertilization’ necessitates the position ‘a fetus ought to be considered a person worthy of legal consideration’. The descriptive view does not dictate normative views on whether a fetus has rights, whether a fetus’ possible rights outweigh a woman’s reproductive rights, or whether a fetus deserves legal protection.
While this means our laws and normative views can change, it does not mean that the descriptive and normative views must align. In fact, it would be impossible. What can’t be argued is that a woman does deserve full legal protections and is a person (now & today), equal to that of a man.
Is it “Murder”?
“How can you be pro-choice after going through infertility? Why do you want a child that you would be willing to ‘murder’?”
I got a handful of messages from people on Instagram telling me this after I proclaimed I was a pro-choice woman going through infertility. Let’s break this down.
Murder is a term used for homicide, the deliberate, unlawful killing of one person by another. This means the fetus is considered a life (can be killed) and has personhood (is a person). But at what point is a fetus a life worthy of legal protection? As the argument above stated, that is a normative question, not a descriptive one.
“Pro-life” argues that life begins at conception, which some state laws define as fertilization when the egg and sperm form a zygote. Others define it as implantation when the embryo implants in the uterus 8–18 days later. Others say it when there is a heartbeat that can be detected as early as 6 weeks (it actually isn’t a heart, it is a group of cells with electrical activities, as the muscular heart is not formed until 20 weeks). So many definitions of life. Wish all the “pro-lifers” could agree.
So what does this mean?
If it begins at fertilization, then I will become a murderer if I donate my embryos to science (have them destroyed in the name of science). If at implantation or the detection of electrical current, all known miscarriages will need death certificates, be investigated for involuntary manslaughter, and get a tax exemption. This is not extreme, it is happening today. There are 413 cases of women who have been arrested or criminalized due to their pregnancy. Luckily, appellate courts have overwhelmingly rejected efforts to use existing criminal and civil laws intended for the protection of children, as the basis for arresting, detaining, or forcing interventions on pregnant women.
Ultimately, it is not murder. So for the love of your sky-daddy, please stop saying this.
Yes, It Is My Body
This is what pro-choice is all about. It is not about the morality of whether a god-fearing Christian believes a zygote is a “human life”. It is not about whether a woman was being a “slut” and should have thought twice before engaging in sex. It is about bodily autonomy. It is about my right to make a choice about my healthcare, my body, and my life outcomes.
A fetus uses a person’s organs, blood, and body to survive. That body is most commonly a cis-gender woman but could be anyone who is equipped with a uterus. Now other than the fact that pregnancy can permanently damage the body and even cause death, pregnancy is “life” support for another.
Where else do we see a person being forced to provide life support for another? Or kidney donation? Or blood donation? Nowhere.
Consent is ALWAYS required for another person to benefit or use another person’s body.
In today’s society, we don’t force people to give blood, donate organs or exchange their life for another. In fact, even in death, consent from the deceased is required to harvest and donate organs, while they are alive. Here are a few examples:
Example 1: A young adult dies and a majority of the organs are very healthy — a heart, a liver, and 2 kidneys. There are 4 children under the age of 10 that need one of these organs to live or they will die in less than 24 hours. However, the young adult never gave consent and therefore their organs can’t be used. The state, hospital, parent(s) of the children, local church group, or federal government can not decide to override the decision of the deceased. No matter the number of young lives.
Example 2: I have a very rare blood type and an infant is sick. Only my blood can save this child’s life. I refuse to donate the blood because I hate needles. The state, hospital, parent(s) of the children, local church group, or federal government can’t decide to override my decision. No matter how trivial the procedure.
Example 3: I just birthed a baby and 3 months later that baby is diagnosed with a rare cancer. This cancer can be cured, but it is experimental with a 1% chance of survival and cost $950K. I have 2 other children, do not have the financial means to cover the cost, and don’t want to put my child through painful treatment. As the parent, I decided that I want to take my child to hospice. The state, hospital, parent(s) of the children, local church group or federal government can not override my decision. No matter what they believe to be right.
As you can see in each example, this is something that would not hold up, nor would we want the government or others to have domain over our bodies. That is a form of slavery.
When it comes to our bodies, we make decisions about what goes into it, who we give it to, and where it goes. We also decide what treatment it gets. We can decide if we want to get surgery to remove a gallstone, if we want to take medication for heartburn or if we want to treat a disease that could end our life. Why is this any different from the healthcare women seek when they want to end a pregnancy?
The “pro-life” stance is the equivalent of forcing a person to be life support for another, no matter the impact on their body or personal freedom. Then for the next 18 years, requiring them to support this person, with no help from the people who forced them to be life support.
While an infant will need care once born, the person carrying the child is the ONLY one that can care for the child.
The ethical question of equality between an adult and a fetus is moot. There is no obligation for a person to sacrifice their bodily autonomy for another, innocent or not.
Women just love F***ing
SEX! Yep, lots of sex. That is how women get pregnant. We sleep around with dozens of men and it is OUR responsibility to take on the financial cost of birth control, wear modest clothes to not get raped, and limit our sexual expression to not suffer the consequences, pregnancy. Because we all know a baby is a consequence.
A baby is not a consequence. It is an outcome, an outcome that takes a man and woman to create, but the outcome is placed on the women. The medical costs, the time off from work, and the physical burden is placed on the pregnant woman. Then there is nausea, which incapacitates you between vomiting, lower back pain which is relieved by brief sleeping sessions. This is for an uncomplicated pregnancy.
Pregnancy is a high cost for a woman who is not ready to be a parent, but really just wants to get that dick. There is nothing wrong with that. Speaking of dicks, a man can purposefully impregnate 1 woman a day for 365 days, that is 365 pregnant women. Each of those women can only carry one healthy pregnancy every 10 months. Yet, the blame is put on women for not keeping it in their pants?
If we follow the formula of “If you have sex, then you have to accept all possible consequences, but can’t seek options to remedy that consequence”, it falls apart.
If you drive a car, you accepted getting into a car crash, and can not seek medical attention.
If you buy a home, then you accept getting robbed, and can not seek legal action.
If you wear revealing clothes, you consented to get raped, and can not seek help.
Sex is not consenting to pregnancy. Sex is consent to sex.
Abortion was and is a political tactic
Roe v. Wade (RvW) has been a hot topic for years. But recently, with heartbeat bills and the appointment of Judge Barrett, it is one of THE issues.
Let’s talk about abortion and politics.
Many politicians, including Biden, have a mixed past on abortion because abortion rights were bi-partisan. In fact, Regan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act in May 1967 to reduce the number of “backroom abortions” performed in California because illegal abortions made up one-sixth of all pregnancy-related deaths, disproportionally impacting low-income women. Eventually, it became a partisan issue, with the combination of grassroots activism (women’s rights) and political strategy (conservatives). In 1980, President Regan was supported by the Moral Majority, which weaponized the issue of abortion to mobilize the evangelical voters.
Many “pro-life” supporters don’t understand how elected representatives are attacking the action of abortion. They believe “personhood” laws only impact women that seek an elective abortion. But it doesn’t. It impacts spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), IVF, and medical treatment for women.
From 2010 to 2018, over 400 abortion-related bills were introduced in 41 states as “copycat” legislation from special-interest groups, many of these include the “heartbeat” bills with the hope to challenge RvW. These bills sought to ban abortion after the detection of a heartbeat, some at 6 weeks of gestation. The copycat legislation was based on writings from an Ohio-based group called Faith2Action, a religious-based group. All the bills put forward were declared unconstitutional, thanks to Roe v Wade.
Other bills, called TRAP laws, look to restrict abortion not through “personhood” but by restricting the number of places available to provide abortion. Mandating certain things about providers or physical location. Including the size of hallways or rooms, types of unnecessary medical equipment, and even the temperature of rooms. This has been partially effective, in restricting minorities and low-income women.
One of the greatest advocates for women’s rights, Justice Ginsburg, was pro-choice. She believed it was the only way for us to be truly equal to men. She was also the biggest advocate for pregnancy. In Struck v. Secretary of Defense of 1974, an Air Force captain was pregnant on active duty and was told to get an abortion or quit. Ginsburg fought for Struck to keep her child and job. This laid the foundation for the principle of reproductive freedom―not just the right to not have children, but the right of a woman to decide for herself whether she wants to bear children. This was a huge win for women in military services that wished to serve AND have a family.
So what is Roe v Wade? In a 7–2 vote in 1973, the court ruled that the government lacks the power to prohibit abortions because a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy came under the freedom of personal choice in family matters, as protected by the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. It took the decision to regulate abortion away from the states and legalized abortion across the United States and introduced the trimester rules. This means, if RvW was overturned, abortion would still be widely available in many progressive states.
The challenge with RvW is that it is based on the “right to privacy” which is not explicit in the Constitution but was used in Griswold v. Connecticut. Then in 1992, RvW was reaffirmed by Planned Parenthood v Casey but the term “undue burden” was introduced to determine a state’s right to interfere in women’s reproductive health. But what is an “undue burden”? Traveling two states over or waiting 24–72 hours to get the procedure? What about forcing pregnancy?
While RvW still exists, we can not take it for granted. The only way to secure rights on equality under the law is a constitutional amendment for sex equality.
Late-term abortion isn’t a thing
“The baby is born, the mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.” — Donald Trump
This is false. This is disturbing. This made me angry.
This is propaganda meant to distort facts and stir emotions. For every woman who has made the impossible choice to terminate a pregnancy they wanted, this is an inconsolable loss. She holds that pain. Her partner holds that pain. And it is her right, morally and medically, to make the best decision for her and her family.
Less than 1.3% of abortions happen after 21 weeks. Abortion happens at this stage, because of maternal health endangerment, physical or financial obstacles have made it difficult for timely medical care or diagnosis of fetal abnormalities. And some women don’t even know they are pregnant.
There is no such thing as partial-birth abortion or late-term abortion.
The term partial-birth abortion was coined by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in 1995 to describe a recently introduced medical procedure to remove fetuses from the womb. That medical procedure was called dilation and extraction, or D&X, which accounts for less than .2% of abortions. Procedures like this are medical care, often protecting the woman’s reproductive organs and health. Luckily, the “Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act” was struck down.
“Late-term” abortion is not a medical term, it is an invention of anti-abortion extremists to mislead and increase stigma. Women do not make the decision at birth with their doctor to commit infanticide. In the worst cases, women birth a child they love and then watch them die.
These terms are meant to be misleading and inflammatory. They are meant to emotionalize facts. When you use these terms to advance your political agenda you are hurting women that are in agonizing pain.
You are assaulting them. You are taking away a choice that is not only their right but also their lifeline. Do better.
“Pro-lifers” Will Kill Millions of Hopeful Parent’s Dreams
Pro-life’s goal is to push for personhood at the earliest part of human development, the embryo. Sadly, many pro-lifers are uneducated on the impact this has on women and families that struggle with infertility. Their fixation on abortion — which involves fetuses and thus embryos already implanted in the womb — fails to consider the repercussions of personhood laws on embryos outside the womb. These laws would limit effective treatments like IVF.
Creating, testing, and freezing embryos could become limited or eliminated because PGT-A and cryopreservation carry a small risk of harming the embryos. This might make it illegal to do those procedures. If we can’t test or preserve this would mean two things, increased miscarriage and/or implanting multiples.
Women would be at increased risk of miscarriage because testing would not be allowed (only a small portion of embryos result in a viable pregnancy). Many embryos don’t make it to a day 5 blastocysts and usually 50–60% come back normal. That means 40–50% are abnormal or mosaic. We wouldn’t know which ones were normal and would have to go through the pain of miscarriage and the cost of implantation.
Or doctors would be required to implant multiples because cryo is not an option, which is not only dangerous to the mother but also the embryos.
Personhood for an embryo would be conflicting in case of divorce or separation. Who has the right to the embryos? The father or the mother? Could the mother implant without the consent of the father? Could the father give them to another woman to carry, despite the biological mother’s consent? I mean you can’t use them to further science. How long could you freeze them for? Ten years or one hundred years? Will they forcefully pregnant women to make sure those embryos can be born?
Couples will also have to take into account if they are okay with donating their embryos to another family. For some, they see this as a way of giving back, but a majority of couples do not donate them to other families, but science.
Over 8M babies born from IVF since 1978 and around 1M in the US. Every person who has used IVF made a choice, often an expensive, emotional and painful choice to become pregnant, to have a child in some way.
I made a choice, to be pregnant. Just a woman has a choice to not be pregnant. America hates infertile people. But don’t worry, they also hate moms.
America Hates “Moms”
America wants us to have babies. Why? Because a steadily increasing population means adding workers to the economy. But the birth rate has been declining for a long time at a 2% rate but increased significantly this past year.
There was a 4% decline in the birthrate from 2019 to 2020, the lowest it has ever been. There was an 8% decline when comparing December 2019 to December 2020, which was at the start of the pandemic. Most women who had babies due in December started their pregnancy in March and April.
The reasons for this decline can include better access to birth control, more women in the workforce, climbing college debt for Millenials, the rising expenses of raising children in America, and economic downturns like the Covid pandemic. People have enough shit going on. The last thing they need is a baby.
You would think with a declining birth rate, our policies would focus on how to support birthing people and families. That our policies would address the highest maternal mortality rate (17.6 deaths per 100,000 births) in an industrialized country. That our policies would address the 16.2% of children that live in poverty. Or maybe providing paid leave following the birth or adoption of a child. And don’t talk about FMLA as the solution because it isn’t the solution to parental leave.
FMLA requires 12 weeks of unpaid leave annually for mothers of newborn or newly adopted children if they work for a company for at least 12 months with 50 or more employees within 75 miles of the “worksite”. First, it is unpaid. And very few people can decide not to work for 12 weeks with no income, especially single moms (as 23% of families are with a single mom). Then only 56% of U.S. employees are eligible for FMLA based on the other requirements (number of employees, work hours, etc.). The United States is the only developed country with no national parental leave policy.
And while I wish I “bounced back” from growing a human and organ for 9 months, pushing/cutting that baby out of my body, and then being sent home to heal while taking care of a needy human, I didn’t. I was in pain for weeks, I feared going to the bathroom and I cried myself to sleep every night. That is just the first two weeks.
At least we get free child care. Oh, wait. We don’t.
Childcare is an infrastructure problem, not a social one. During the global pandemic, when schools and daycares closed down, parents became teachers while working and some parents lost jobs, it was clear a government support childcare system is needed to keep America running. The US is one of the most expensive countries for childcare taking around 1/3 of a household income. Then you add in the fact that most conservatives don’t support welfare systems, won’t support a higher minimum wage, and teach abstinence-only education while restricting birth control. Seriously, WTF?
If systems were in place (like most developed countries) to support families, there would be fewer abortions. Why? Because 59% of women getting abortions are already moms. They choose to get abortions because they fear for the wellbeing — often financial — of their current children.
What do you expect women to do? You want them to have babies. Specifically, the working-class, low-income group of women. Because no matter what you do, rich, affluent, and mostly white women will ALWAYS find a way to get the healthcare they need.
This leads me to my next point. Conservatives are idoits.
Restricting Abortion, Doesn’t Reduce Abortion
Abortion bans are racist, ineffective, and kill women. Read that again.
Most abortion legislation is passed by a majority white, male, evangelical legislature that has no understanding of how the female body works. Abortion bans impact poor, rural, and marginalized communities, black and Hispanic, the most. When TRAP laws are put in place to reduce the number of clinics that provide abortion, it limits the options of those with the least amount of resources. And while I would love to detail all the reasons why it is racist this Refinery 29, Guttmacher, American Progress, and NCBI publication explain the racial inequality.
The Guttmacher Institute found that abortions happen at the same rate in countries where abortion is broadly legal and prohibited altogether. In Brazil, where is abortion is only permitted to save the pregnant woman’s life or where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, abortions still happen for other reasons. It is estimated by the age of 40 1 in 5 Brazilian women have an abortion. It is also estimated that 250,000 women enter emergency rooms every year with health problems that are a direct consequence of unsafe abortions. Unsafe abortion is the fourth leading cause of maternal mortality in Brazil. Worldwide between 4.7% — 13.2% of maternal deaths can be attributed to unsafe abortion each year (mostly in developing countries). Both maternal and infant mortality are 2–3 times higher for black women than non-Hispanic white women.
Lastly, you are 14x more likely to die from childbirth than from abortion. So the next time an anti-choice, pro-birth asshole says they are protecting women and babies, tell them to shove it.
I’m not done
This could be the end. But I am just getting started. I have dozens of studies, arguments, and rationales on why abortion should remain legal, safe, and accessible.
I am a mom. I am a person with a uterus. And I am unequivocally pro-choice.
