Forest

Right. So I consider myself both pro-choice and pro-life. That is straight up contradictory, so I'd like to broaden the pro-choice definition to be the right to choose wether or not to be a parent or even to give birth, rather than just the choice to get an abortion. I'll touch on it in a bit, but I feel like this makes it no longer contradictory. I've done a lot of thinking about this, because being pro-life sticks out like a sore thumb next to all of my other political beliefs.

I'd like to first give my reasoning for being pro-life, which I think is also very important. In the past, I've written about how I think that what makes someone human is the potential for self-awareness, because I believe self-awareness to be uniquely human, but if you were to just say self-awareness, that excludes toddlers, people in comas, and a few other groups that I think should still be considered humans, otherwise some pretty awful stuff can no longer be excluded on any argument of humanity. I'd rather avoid that entirely. However, this definition also includes fetuses. As such, I believe it to be an extension of my position against murder to be against abortion.

I'd also like to acknowledge that this point, even though it is backed through an objective line of reason, it's still a subjective opinion, it's just what I feel like is the most correct. I could also argue that under this definition, any gamete is a human because it can reproduce to reach this standard, or if I wanted to get really abstract, that individual carbon-based molecules have the potential for self awareness if they are used to produce said gametes. I don't, because I think that that's a stupid argument to make, but I digress. The same goes for the other side. The best I can think of is that because the fetus is both attached to another entity and incapable of self-awareness, it is not a seperate being yet, though I'm not comfortable at drawing the line at the detachment of the umbilical cord. Regardless, if I wanted to, I have no doubt that I could tweak my definition of a human to exclude a fetus. It'd just be a betrayel of my intuitive and learned beliefs, which are still subjective, but real regardless.

Despite my beliefs about what defines a human, I still consider myself pro-choice for one simple reason: No one wants to get an abortion, it's just the best avaliable remedy to a situation. If someone goes out of their way to get pregnant for the sole purpose of having an abortion, that's kinda weird and a bit psycopathic in my opinion, but I don't think that ever happens anyways. Because of this, I think the root issue isn't abortion itself, it's the conditions that lead people to get abortions. I'm absolutely in favour of women's (+trans and intersex, but I'm just going to use "women" for brevity) reproductive rights, but I'm still not in favor of abortion for the reasons above. I don't think these views conflict.

However, I have issues with the pro-life crowd, which I believe are more anti-choice than pro-life. Rather than engage with these issues intellectually, a lot of pro-life rhetoric is just emotionally manipulative. There's a lot "would you feel comfortable murdering [picture of third trimester fetus]" stuff, meaningless benchmarking (i.e. heartbeat at 8 weeks stuff, which I'm pretty sure isn't even true), and straight up shock photos. None of that is helpful, and it's just meant to create outrage. Then there's the outright vilifying of those who are pro-choice, especially if they've had an abortion. I fail to see how calling people murderers is going to win them over, especially because the decision to get an abortion is often a pretty hard decision to make. As I've said, no one wants to get an abortion, it's just preferable to the alternative.

The main reason I think it's more anti-choice than pro-life is that the same crowd puts very little importance into the lives of anyone that isn't a fetus. You can't just ban abortion and call it a day. A child born into a home (or lack thereof) incapable for caring for them is going to either be neglected (or outright abused), or thrown into the woefully undersupported fostercare system, which can, and will, mess a child up permanantly. Not to mention the strain that can be put on the parent(s). Raising a child is so expensive and time-consuming, and can literally ruin someone's life if they are not prepared for it. Financial distress, social stigma, and unsupportive parents are all pretty terrible things. How many stories are there of teens getting pregnant then getting disowned? And then after all of that, there's a lot of health issues that can befall both the parent and child.

I'm going to gatekeep here a bit, and say that anyone who is pro-life should also be concerned about these issues, and willing to remedy them. Free (or even just affordable) contraceptives and pre/post-natal care can remedy a lot of health issues. Comprehensive sex education and a crackdown on the social stigmas around sex would go a long way. Teaching consent and putting less pressure on boys to be romantically active as well. Hell, make raising a child a paid job, or better yet, impliment a universal basic income. Put more resources towards foster care, and give better incentives for adoption. Also let non-straight cisgender couples adopt, that'd be pretty great. If the circumstances require it, I'd even be in favor of state-funded artificial wombs, where a fetus can be surgically removed and grown in some kinda vat or something. When all of the factors leading people to get abortions are aleviated, then, and only then, can abortion be banned in my opinion. This is an attitude that is woefully lacking in pro-life circles. A lot of them seem more concerned about punishing people for daring to have sex.

Even if I think it's wrong, abortion is kinda necessary to allow for reproductive rights and autonomy, which I think is good. So instead of wrapping everything up in politics and vilifying the other side of the argument (admittedly, calling someone a murderer is definately worse than sexist, so pro-life has a lot more to work on), I'd rather work towards ensuring reproductive rights without abortion being necessary, which is a win-win (unless you want to punish people you don't like, but I'm fine with that stance losing). Really, I think this is a completely unnecessary conflict, and banning abortion will just lead to the worst possible outcome.

Making it illegal isn't going to stop abortions, it's just going to make safe ones harder to come by. Fetuses aren't exactly robust, but anything that can harm a fetus can harm an adult in excessive amounts. Not to mention the mess it will be if miscarriages start getting investigated as murders, that'd be super dystopian (especially since pro-lifers tend to support the death penelty for murder). But the people in power rarely ever care about their constituent's wellbeings above their own, so I doubt they will start now, and nothing to alleviate the circumstances will happen systemically. I'd be surprised if abortions were still allowed in some states a month from now, and I'd guess it's about 6 months until a lot of people start getting arrested. Either that, or a new Row v. Wade will happen, and we'll be back to square one, only more polarized and angry.

Hopefully my point is well substantiated here, and I don't sound like a flaming mysoginist or anything. Women deserve the right to choose, but that choice needs to be better integrated. Preventative care is better than prescriptive and all that.