Read on Twitter
I know I spend a lot of time critiquing pro-choice arguments and trying to refine a feminist pro-choice position. But for something different, and possibly comforting: Here& #39;s why I think pro-life arguments will ultimately fail, and how PLers have made a serious strategic mistake.
The currently popular PL argument states:
Life/personhood begins at conception.
There is no hierarchy of human life (no human life worth more than any others.)
Right to life supercedes right to bodily autonomy.
Therefore, all abortion except to save life of mother is immoral.
Life/personhood begins at conception.
There is no hierarchy of human life (no human life worth more than any others.)
Right to life supercedes right to bodily autonomy.
Therefore, all abortion except to save life of mother is immoral.
This argument has a lot to make it appealing. It doesn& #39;t reference religion, but instead appeals to vaguely secular concerns about "human rights". It seems scientific ("read a biology textbook!"). It doesn& #39;t explicitly reference sexist beliefs about the proper role of women.
Unfortunately for the PL side, this argument leads to strange and non-intuitive conclusions about the morality of abortion. Importantly, it implies that early term abortions aren& #39;t any better than late term abortions or even murder ("no hierarchy of human life.")
This conflicts with most people& #39;s folk beliefs about abortion, which might be described as "Early abortion is OK/not too bad, but abortion gets more and more bad gradually as the pregnancy progresses."
Worse, it implies that anything that causes the destruction of zygotes is as bad as anything that causes the death of children or adults. That means that any woman who gets IVF and discards or doesn& #39;t use an embryo is guilty of manslaughter or at best reckless endangerment.
And that is where I suspect the pro-life assumptions about personhood at conception will get serious resistance, especially as IVF becomes more popular and more embryos are destroyed in the process. I don& #39;t think they can persuade nonreligious people this is murder, at all.
I think people will immediately challenge this idea that an equally valuable person is created at conception (which admittedly does seem quite silly if you don& #39;t believe in ensoulment) and pro-lifers are going to have to back off from this idea to get support.
But that& #39;s a big problem for the PL side. All the sophisticated pro-life arguments are built from the idea that conception is the sole morally relevant factor to personhood and that all "persons are equal."
If they back away from this position, pro-lifers are left arguing from emotion ("How could a good woman destroy a fetus?") And that& #39;s a big problem! Pro-lifers will lose any high ground they had as the ones arguing from "logic" and "concern for universal human rights."
I don& #39;t think pro-choice feminists should get complacent about abortion. But I think the pro-life side has made a serious strategic error staking out conception as the only morally relevant factor. As reproductive technologies become more popular, this idea will be scrutinized.
I suspect that the culture will continue to move in a more pro-choice direction, with a core of hardcore religious conservatives opposed to all IVF, abortion, and stem cell research. But pro-choice women need to be bold about pointing out these inconsistencies to make it happen!
