Good stuff. It's crazy to think about the amount of torn social fabric and human energy wasted on a political cause that so many ordinary citizens actually can reach some agreement on. "Safe, legal, and rare" is clearly the only workable and humane policy, and the modal American knows this.
I agree with all your conclusions but let me state my position in the most provocative way possible. So why would one think that such a life is worth protecting? Here are the often listed reasons:
1. Because most lives are net positive: Fetuses are sort of fungible, and forcing someone to have this specific one, probably forecloses the future of another one in the future. (and the specific one in question will likely have a worse life, all else equal, given decision to abort). Also if we wanted to impose this on people, we need to be pushing people to have as many kids as possible. (whcih might be a good idea but I digress).
2. Because when you take a life, you make everyone who loves that person sad - Not applicable, since mother would be more sad if you didn't let her abort. And that's the only person we can reasonably expect the fetus to have any bond or special relationship with.
3. Because it's hard to kill something without hurting it - Yea, this one I have a lot of sympathy for. The development of a nervous system should def be a factor in what types of procedures we allow.
3. Because from every life, emerges an interest in preserving itself, of hope, anspirations etc - Ya fetuses have none of that. Babies don't either actually, maybe not even toddlers.
4. To preserve the norm because it would be much better if everyone believed life was worth serving - Ya fair, that's why maybe allowing people to kill their toddlers is a bit much since it's harder to explain why you can now arbitarily kill a human being. Birth seems like a perfect time to endow someone with personhood, given at least physical autonomy. Everything after that gets a little messy.
So that's my position. The people who believe that a week old fetus is almost a life are most certainly crazy - there's no secular non crazy way to argue it. I'd feel like being kind to them but unfortunately, they seem so persistent about imposing their delusions on the rest of us, that I chose to write this in the most indignant way to offend at least one of them.
Sure but if what you care about is reasonable abortion policy I think it’s more effective to try to understand their perspective and to focus on arguments, like the ones I presented, that don’t really require them to drastically change their view to get on board with legal abortion. From their perspective pro choice advocates are also trying to force their beliefs down everyone’s throats. And most people are actually closer to a nuance middle than either extreme. Instead of alienating people I’m suggesting you approach them where they are and offer compromise solutions which are better for everyone.
You’ve stated what I’ve been thinking for several years now. Great piece.
One philosophical question:
Some people genuinely believe life begins at conception, so of course in this perspective, abortion = murder. It bothers me that so many pro-choicers are so dismissive of this argument.
What I fail to understand is how someone can believe that life (or to be precise, personhood) begins at conception and also support legalized abortion. These positions seem fundamentally opposed to me. It feels like saying it’s okay to kill innocent people if their existence is really really inconvenient to you. We also wouldn’t say, “Well if we don’t allow abortion (one type of murder), then worse outcomes occur (death of two people in illegal abortions), so we should allow abortion.”
Again, I don’t believe that personhood starts at conception, but IF you believe that it does, I don’t understand how you can be permissive of any type of abortion, even abortion for rape or incest. Murder is murder, regardless of how the victim came to exist.
I accept that people can hold multiple contradictory thoughts at the same time. People compartmentalize. If anyone has thoughts, I am genuinely curious how these can be compatible.
Thank you! I agree the lack of belief that others believe is so frustrating - reminiscent of liberals who can't wrap their mind around the idea that jihadis actually believe what they say they believe. I think this comes from people who've never been religious or have never been close to religious people or communities. And as a Catholic (who really believed!) turned atheist I hope I can help bridge that gap in understanding.
I totally get your question, and agree that it's very difficult to be pro choice if you believe life begins at conception, but I was motivated to write this post largely because I used to be that person. I no longer believe that "life begins at conception", at least not *human* life, but I actually think there are very good reasons to be pro choice even if you believe that.
So, let's take for granted that life begins at conception. The main reason to support legal abortion *anyways* is the bodily autonomy issue - I mention it early in the post but don't spend a ton of time on it. The argument is that because pregnancy is very traumatic to the body, requires daily changes in behavior such as what you eat and drink, how you exercise and sleep, it's an unreasonable sacrifice to require one person to do for another person (again, assuming the fetus has a person status here). In this case we'd find abortions painfully tragic and sad, and we might shame people who get them, but that isn't a good enough reason to make it illegal because we don't require this sort of sacrifice in any other cases. As I say in the post "Now, a fetus is different than some random other person because, other than in the case of pregnancy as a result of rape, the pregnant woman has had a hand in it’s creation. But a parent has also had a hand in the creation of their child, and yet we don’t require them to donate an organ to the child if needed (although we usually would expect them to). We also don’t require a drunk driver who’s harmed someone to donate an organ to his victim, even though he is morally culpable for the damage caused. You could argue that maybe we should require him to… but my point is we don’t and our laws should be consistent."
Also, I think this is bad for utilitarian reasons, although I doubt those would be convincing to many "life begins at conception" people. And I also think this is a religious/philosophical belief and that a secular society cannot function when religious ideas are forced upon others through the law. Although again, not everyone might value secular society!
The bodily autonomy argument wouldn't be relevant if we had the technology to painlessly remove a fetus from a mother and incubate it and then have the state or adoptive parents care for it. In that case I don't think there'd be any way that a "life begins at conception" person could support legal abortion. And I'm not sure I'd support it either in this case (assuming there were sufficient people or resources to take care of the kids)!
Forgive me in advance for the lengthy response… I get excited because I don’t really know anyone I can discuss this with! And I’m especially interested to hear how you think, given that you are not only very thoughtful but also formerly religious (which I have never been, so you give me insight into a mindset I’ve never had). From reading your other writings, it seems we arrive at similar conclusions but (I assume) have taken very different routes to getting there.
Re: people never having been close to religion -- completely agree. I was raised in an extremely blue area and definitely fell into the camp of “Republicans just want to control women and don’t care about babies after they’re born, so they can’t be sincere about protecting life.” I eventually joined a cult-like left wing group, likely more left wing than the wokest person you’ve met. Various aspects of being part of and leaving a pseudo-religion opened me to the idea that people are actually sincere in their beliefs. When I left, I was accused of many things, like not being willing to work on my internalized sexism (I'm a woman btw... not that women can't be sexist, but thought I'd add that for context). They couldn’t fathom that I actually just genuinely disagreed with their positions.
Re: Bad for utilitarian reasons — I agree both that it’s bad for utilitarian reasons and that this argument wouldn’t be very convincing if you believe abortion is murder. Murder is not really a topic we can “agree to disagree” on.
Re: bodily autonomy. If you examine this argument more carefully, I’m not sure it holds. The following quote responds to a thought experiment presented by Judith Jarvis Thomson. In the thought experiment, you are selected to be hooked up to a famous violinist to serve as her human dialysis machine. Without you, she will die. This commentary could also apply to the argument about not forcing anyone to donate organs, which is why I bring it up here:
~~~
“But if we follow Thomson, holding that the unborn child is akin to a violinist, then this premise also entails that the human fetus has a right not to have her body used in order to keep someone else alive (or a fortiori for any lesser purpose). But in abortion, at least as characteristically performed, the bodily integrity of the unborn child is violated. If we have a right not to be forced to lose one kidney to keep someone else alive, we surely must also have a right not to involuntarily lose both kidneys, lungs, and our life itself in order to help someone else not to be pregnant. If the "right to control your own body" means anything, it means that no one can dismember a person without that person's consent. But this is precisely what takes place in a typical abortion. As abortion defender Jeff McMahan points out, "The standard methods for performing abortions clearly involve killing the fetus: the fetus dies by being mangled or poisoned in the process of being removed from the uterus" (2002, 378). To mangle or poison a person's body without the person's consent is to violate that person's rights…
The intention/foresight objection is another reason to reject the violinist argument for abortion. In the case of the violinist, after [the violinist] is unplugged, she dies of her underlying kidney disease. By contrast, the unborn child prior to viability is typically suffering from no illness or disease. Abortion as typically performed is not a simple "detaching" of the unborn child who later dies from an underlying disease. Rather, the goal of the abortionist is to end the life of the unborn child. That is why a failed abortion" refers to the case in which an abortion is attempted but the child in fact does not die and is born alive. The goal of the abortionist, as a means or an end, is not simply to end a pregnancy (which is also accomplished by live birth). The goal of the abortionist is to kill, to make sure that the child in utero dies.
To make the violinist analogy more like abortion, imagine that we "detach" ourselves from [the violinist] by paying someone to remove her arms and legs and then decapitate her with the goal of making sure she is dead. Intentionally killing a person differs ethically from foreseeing that a person will die. Hitler ordered that German troops retreating from the Russian front be shot to death. Eisenhower ordered that American troops storm the beaches at Normandy. Both commanders knew that these orders would result in death. But Hitler intends to kill his soldiers and Eisenhower merely foresees the deaths of his soldiers. Given the ethical import of the intention/foresight distinction, abortion is not like the case of detaching from the violinist.” (P153-154, Abortion Rights: For and Against by Kate Gresley and Christopher Kaczor).
~~~
Curious on your thoughts, if you have time to provide them! Even if not, thanks for the engagement. I recently discovered your Substack and I’m really enjoying your writing!
Maybe where I'm arriving at is, if you truly believe that full human personhood begins at conception, then there is no argument that justifies abortion. If you believe that life begins at conception but abortion can be justified (though tragic), then you don't _really_ believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a born human being. The fetus has value and its interests should be considered, but it's not truly alive in the same way that a born human is alive.
I don't want to do the thing of telling people, "You don't really believe what you say you believe"... and yet.. that's kind of what I'm doing. Although I don't think people are lying about their beliefs. I just think most people haven't deeply grappled with the implications of their beliefs, evidenced by your stat that most people believe life begins at conception but also support abortion rights.
I think David Boonin has an argument in A Defence of Abortion for the claim that if you think it's okay to unplug a violinist (think extractive abortions or I think also abortions by pill) then you should also think that directly lethal forms of abortion are permissible at least in cases where they are safer.
I also think it's just ambiguous whether some abortions are cases of killing or failing to assist. Think someone who presses a button to remove all the oxygen from a nearby room it seems they've killed the occupant not failed to assist them.
There's also a different line of argument which says abortion is justified killing.
Think of someone killing a rapist in self defence. We can suppose the rapist has been drugged with some sort of mind altering chemical and is quite innocent it still seems permissible to kill them if this is the only way to defend yourself.
(This also seems to have quite extreme implications about the impermissiblity of conscription but whatever)
Anyway this comment has been very long and rambling I agree that bodily autonomy arguments are not as strong as people on the left seem to think. I am way more confident that a embryo is not a person than I am that Thomson style arguments succeed.
Yes, precisely this. I do think the strongest argument in favor of legalized abortion is that a fetus is not a person. People argue about whether life begins at conception, which I think is a waste — it obviously does. A fetus is an organic entity. The question shouldn’t be when life begins but when personhood begins. Just because something is alive doesn’t mean we grant it rights; otherwise animals would have the same rights as humans. Only people have full rights, and that is truly the crux of the argument.
Very good piece! You're right that too many pro-choicers don't seem to fully absorb that pro-lifers think abortion is *murdering babies*. So for many pro-lifers, the idea of legalized abortion seems insane. Moving the needle with most pro-lifers requires addressing that aspect of their belief. Just talking about personal choice and financial stability usually won't get very far.
However, if pro-lifers truly believe that fetuses have the same humanity as babies, then shouldn't they also consider abortion to be *first-degree* murder? Wouldn't an abortion be the moral equivalent of a mother hiring someone to strangle her 3-week-old baby in its crib? Yet I doubt many pro-lifers would be comfortable with abortions being punished with life sentences or the death penalty. This seems to imply that fetuses aren't actually fully human to most pro-lifers either. Of course, that doesn't mean fetuses deserve no protection at all, but it might help pro-lifers see that the issue is greyer than they think (even in their own minds).
Yes, that's a good point that even pro-lifers don't really see it as equivalent to murder. And even infanticide may be seen as less bad than regular murder. In this Louise Perry post she quotes Helen Dale saying:
"An echo of humanity’s infanticidal past is still found in jury rooms throughout the common law world: the reason we do not refer to infant-killing as “murder” is because in 1922, it was reclassified and re-named with passage of the Infanticide Act. This was done because juries refused to convict—even before 1920, when they were all male and the Crown case was overwhelming—and had been refusing to convict for some time. The only crime for which fewer convictions were recorded was abortion. In Scotland, there hadn’t been a successful abortion prosecution for 50 years. To this day, infanticide convictions are astonishingly rare."
Thanks for the link to that article. "First Things" is one of the best sources of Christian intellectualism. Unfortunately almost no professed Christians have even heard of it.
Both sides seem to ignore how horrific, life impairing a decision this must be for the women (and fathers) making it. I am pro choice as a matter of principle, but that also mean making sure there are as many other choices as possible, and fixing the problems that oead to young vulnerable people ending up in such a situation in the first place. No?
Substack should add a way for readers to recommend books and even pay the substacker to read it, if they so choose. I used to debate abortion heavily, and its a much richer and deeper topic than you realize. I highly recommend: Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights. It's written by a Catholic convert, but its arguments are purely scientific and legal. I'd even pitch in if you are willing to read it and write a review about it. Let me know.
A couple quibbles with your analysis:
For one, the organ analogies don't apply as this isn't just two random strangers: this is literally the mother, and family obligations come in. If abortion is legal, than there is no basis for family obligations of any kind. If the "mother" cant be "forced" to endure what every mother goes through, 9 months of yes grueling pregnancy and later birth, than why should fathers be forced to pay child support for 18 years of that child's life? Under the court of law, if the law can force a man to sweat, work a dangerous job, and give his BODY wages to his child's wellbeing...why cant it force a mother to do the same for 9 months? Abortion undermines all family obligations. The logical end result is more dystopian than people realize.
Also, nobody disagrees that the new zygote, taking the egg of the mother, the sperm of the father is a new unique human being. The DNA is unique and will stay with this human being throughout all if its life. The only religious aspect of the whole thing is actually just in assigning a high value to human beings at all stages of development (its also primarily religious against euthanasia as well). This is similar to the slavery debate: of course slaves were human beings, but Christians were the first to assign full value to those human beings. Now we all see it as obvious. Once we recognize that human development is a process that does not cease at the time of birth, then to insist that the unborn at six weeks look like the newborn infant is no more reasonable than to expect the newborn to look like a teenager. If we acknowledge as 'human' a succession of outward forms after birth, there is no reason not to extend that courtesy to the unborn, since human life is a continuum from conception to natural death. By confusing appearance with reality, may have inadvertently created a new prejudice, "natalism." And, like other prejudices such as sexism and racism, natalism emphasizes nonessential differences ("they have a different appearance") in order to support a favored group ("the already born").
Thanks Poncho, will consider reading the book you mention although I'm about to get into a new series of posts and may not get back to this topic for some time. In the meantime check out my post "Fetus Daddy" where I discuss my view on the father's obligation as well as how things would change if we had tech that enables the fetus' viability outside of the mother at a much earlier stage.
Responding to a few of your points:
1. "the organ analogies don't apply as this isn't just two random strangers: this is literally the mother, and family obligations come in."
We also don't force parents to give their organs to their children by law. We would shame someone who refused but it is not a legal obligation.
2. "If the "mother" cant be "forced" to endure what every mother goes through, 9 months of yes grueling pregnancy and later birth, than why should fathers be forced to pay child support for 18 years of that child's life?"
I don't think he should be forced either - see my views on this in my Fetus Daddy post
3. "nobody disagrees that the new zygote, taking the egg of the mother, the sperm of the father is a new unique human being."
The fetus is certainly a being with human DNA, and so I agree you can call it human life, but there is substantial disagreement on when that human life gets person status and all the rights which come with it. Some people think this happens at the moment of conception but many think it comes at some point later in development, such as when we expect that the fetus can feel pain or when it would be viable without the mother. For many human DNA is not enough on its own to grant a being person status, but there needs to be other characteristics present. I also think we can observe how people react to early miscarriages, even when they really want the baby, as a sign of the how differently very young fetuses are seen relative to highly developed fetuses or babies - there is a spectrum here and I think seeing a fetus as of the moment of conception as equal to a full person is not a common view and counter to most people's intuitions.
Let me know if you decide to read the book. Id be glad to throw in some "founding member" money for an honest review. I'm instinctively pro-choice, but mentally pro-life. If that makes any sense.
Quick response on #3: where else in history have we separated the scientifically undisputed term "human being" from the philosophical term "personhood"? Historically, they were mostly synonymous, except in a few rare cases that we now look back on with shame. Were blacks also human beings but not persons? It seemed so at the time. How about slaves in general? What about sex difference, are women yes human beings, but not full persons? What about the disabled? Notice the trend here. All abortion does is divide human worth not by color, or sex, or ability, but by stage of development. We were all zygotes at one point in our life. We all came from that same stage of development.
The only thing that's religious about this discussion is the absolute rock bottom premise that Judeo-Christians have that all human beings are equal in the eyes of God. So yes, the very vulnerable like the zygote and fetus, or the disabled, or the very old that no longer provides economic worth are just as valuable as say Steve Jobs, regardless of economic productivity. This is completely contrary to most peoples intuitions, but it remains the bedrock of Western Civilization.
The more you start dividing "human being" from "personhood", the more confusing and difficult the true logical limits will be to stomach. Take Peter Singer, the most consistent pro-choice philosopher out there, he doesn't just think abortion should be allowed, but also the right to kill already born infants with disabilities, and even the right for mothers to kill newborns without disabilities if the child is within a month of birth (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1999/09/11/a-professor-who-argues-for-infanticide/cce7dc81-3775-4ef6-bfea-74cd795fc43f/).
Sound shocking? It shouldn't. These are the true logical extremes of the pro-choice cause. (We all know what the true logical extremes of the pro-life cause are: incest, rape, etc...but few go the logical limit in pro-choice direction).
I actually think there are good reasons to not assign full personhood to a fetus at an early stage of development - for instance it doesn't feel pain, doesn't have aspirations and isn't in relationship with any other people yet beyond the mother. But I do think where the line is drawn is somewhat arbitrary.
Regardless though, I think that bodily autonomy is the most fundamental right, and that preventing abortion, especially at an early stage, is a violation of that right. And as I've said we don't accept this as an appropriate violation in any other cases, including when the life of your own child depends on it.
Regarding the bodily autonomy argument, I recommend the response Francis Beckwith (author of the book recommended above) gave to the philosophical paper "unplugging the violinist". I can no longer access the PDF, but I'd highly recommend it. See here: :https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11656685/
My favorite response given is parental responsibility. This is not two strangers, one forcing the other to share their organs "in a vacuum". This is the mother undergoing a process/pregnancy that ALL mothers have went through throughout history. It's a "normal" process, part of human beings since the beginning of time. This is not something odd like organ sharing would be in isolated situations. Thus the legal foundation is based on familial obligations. She owes the unborn the birthing process based on her relationship as the mother to said unborn child. From a legal perspective, its really no different than forcing a father to work and provide his blood sweat and tears (wages) to his child for 18 years. Parental rights are unique. Not just for the mother (during pregnancy) but for the father as well. Where else can ones wages be garnished to feed another human being? All parental responsibilities are unique. If abortion releases the mother from her familial obligations during pregnancy, why couldn't it release the father? He is fundamentally doing the same: using his body to feed another "human being".
The argument from pain, aspirations, and relationship to others is significantly much weaker and is fully handled in the book recommended. Here is a snippet on pain, for example:
"There are several problems with this argument. First, it confuses harm with hurt and the experience of harm with the reality of harm. One can be harmed without experiencing the hurt that sometimes follows from that harm, and which we often mistake for the harm itself. For example, a temporarily comatose person who is suffocated to death "experiences no harm," but he is nevertheless harmed. Hence, one does not have to experience harm, which is sometimes manifested in hurt, in order to be truly harmed."
Overall good discussion, and appreciate the honest back and forth.
The autonomy of the body at its core assumes the primacy of individualism over familial and social responsibilities. While this is the dominant modern western framework, it is not a traditional or arguably human approach. Practically speaking many people use their autonomy to produce well beyond their individual needs creating abundance in their families and communities that provides for the young, indigent and foolish. People we view as good, do this irrespective of individual compensation for the social good.
The traditionalist view is simply that motherhood is a respected familial and social responsibility. Abortion (among other things) is fundamentally an abdication of those responsibilities placing self before family and society. Along with this comes conservative views of gender, sexuality and marriage. Motherhood is not the exclusive contribution of women (great female leaders are ubiquitous and the segregation of economic contributions are relatively recent), motherhood is a normative role. You needed (and need) many willing mothers for the stability and strength of the population especially when infant mortality and death in childbirth was common. Heroic motherhood was dieified or later made a religious example.
A combination of free sex and modern feminism degraded traditional motherhood to the point that population pyramids are inverting despite modern medicine. The "right" to individual autonomy makes the mistake that we achieve happiness or well-being from autonomy. People appear to be most happy when they willingly take on the responsibility of motherhood. When do social responsibilities become legal requirements? When culture begins to broadly suffer from widespread individual abdication.
Good stuff. It's crazy to think about the amount of torn social fabric and human energy wasted on a political cause that so many ordinary citizens actually can reach some agreement on. "Safe, legal, and rare" is clearly the only workable and humane policy, and the modal American knows this.
I agree with all your conclusions but let me state my position in the most provocative way possible. So why would one think that such a life is worth protecting? Here are the often listed reasons:
1. Because most lives are net positive: Fetuses are sort of fungible, and forcing someone to have this specific one, probably forecloses the future of another one in the future. (and the specific one in question will likely have a worse life, all else equal, given decision to abort). Also if we wanted to impose this on people, we need to be pushing people to have as many kids as possible. (whcih might be a good idea but I digress).
2. Because when you take a life, you make everyone who loves that person sad - Not applicable, since mother would be more sad if you didn't let her abort. And that's the only person we can reasonably expect the fetus to have any bond or special relationship with.
3. Because it's hard to kill something without hurting it - Yea, this one I have a lot of sympathy for. The development of a nervous system should def be a factor in what types of procedures we allow.
3. Because from every life, emerges an interest in preserving itself, of hope, anspirations etc - Ya fetuses have none of that. Babies don't either actually, maybe not even toddlers.
4. To preserve the norm because it would be much better if everyone believed life was worth serving - Ya fair, that's why maybe allowing people to kill their toddlers is a bit much since it's harder to explain why you can now arbitarily kill a human being. Birth seems like a perfect time to endow someone with personhood, given at least physical autonomy. Everything after that gets a little messy.
So that's my position. The people who believe that a week old fetus is almost a life are most certainly crazy - there's no secular non crazy way to argue it. I'd feel like being kind to them but unfortunately, they seem so persistent about imposing their delusions on the rest of us, that I chose to write this in the most indignant way to offend at least one of them.
Sure but if what you care about is reasonable abortion policy I think it’s more effective to try to understand their perspective and to focus on arguments, like the ones I presented, that don’t really require them to drastically change their view to get on board with legal abortion. From their perspective pro choice advocates are also trying to force their beliefs down everyone’s throats. And most people are actually closer to a nuance middle than either extreme. Instead of alienating people I’m suggesting you approach them where they are and offer compromise solutions which are better for everyone.
> but if there’s any situation where it makes sense to do whatever you must to get it, it’s this
Prostitution? I mean it’s not like you can get double pregnant
Kidding, good article. Always appreciate balanced discussions on the one topic everyone loves to talk past each other on
lol I was thinking something more like PayDay loans. Thanks very much!!
You’ve stated what I’ve been thinking for several years now. Great piece.
One philosophical question:
Some people genuinely believe life begins at conception, so of course in this perspective, abortion = murder. It bothers me that so many pro-choicers are so dismissive of this argument.
What I fail to understand is how someone can believe that life (or to be precise, personhood) begins at conception and also support legalized abortion. These positions seem fundamentally opposed to me. It feels like saying it’s okay to kill innocent people if their existence is really really inconvenient to you. We also wouldn’t say, “Well if we don’t allow abortion (one type of murder), then worse outcomes occur (death of two people in illegal abortions), so we should allow abortion.”
Again, I don’t believe that personhood starts at conception, but IF you believe that it does, I don’t understand how you can be permissive of any type of abortion, even abortion for rape or incest. Murder is murder, regardless of how the victim came to exist.
I accept that people can hold multiple contradictory thoughts at the same time. People compartmentalize. If anyone has thoughts, I am genuinely curious how these can be compatible.
Thank you! I agree the lack of belief that others believe is so frustrating - reminiscent of liberals who can't wrap their mind around the idea that jihadis actually believe what they say they believe. I think this comes from people who've never been religious or have never been close to religious people or communities. And as a Catholic (who really believed!) turned atheist I hope I can help bridge that gap in understanding.
I totally get your question, and agree that it's very difficult to be pro choice if you believe life begins at conception, but I was motivated to write this post largely because I used to be that person. I no longer believe that "life begins at conception", at least not *human* life, but I actually think there are very good reasons to be pro choice even if you believe that.
So, let's take for granted that life begins at conception. The main reason to support legal abortion *anyways* is the bodily autonomy issue - I mention it early in the post but don't spend a ton of time on it. The argument is that because pregnancy is very traumatic to the body, requires daily changes in behavior such as what you eat and drink, how you exercise and sleep, it's an unreasonable sacrifice to require one person to do for another person (again, assuming the fetus has a person status here). In this case we'd find abortions painfully tragic and sad, and we might shame people who get them, but that isn't a good enough reason to make it illegal because we don't require this sort of sacrifice in any other cases. As I say in the post "Now, a fetus is different than some random other person because, other than in the case of pregnancy as a result of rape, the pregnant woman has had a hand in it’s creation. But a parent has also had a hand in the creation of their child, and yet we don’t require them to donate an organ to the child if needed (although we usually would expect them to). We also don’t require a drunk driver who’s harmed someone to donate an organ to his victim, even though he is morally culpable for the damage caused. You could argue that maybe we should require him to… but my point is we don’t and our laws should be consistent."
Also, I think this is bad for utilitarian reasons, although I doubt those would be convincing to many "life begins at conception" people. And I also think this is a religious/philosophical belief and that a secular society cannot function when religious ideas are forced upon others through the law. Although again, not everyone might value secular society!
The bodily autonomy argument wouldn't be relevant if we had the technology to painlessly remove a fetus from a mother and incubate it and then have the state or adoptive parents care for it. In that case I don't think there'd be any way that a "life begins at conception" person could support legal abortion. And I'm not sure I'd support it either in this case (assuming there were sufficient people or resources to take care of the kids)!
Forgive me in advance for the lengthy response… I get excited because I don’t really know anyone I can discuss this with! And I’m especially interested to hear how you think, given that you are not only very thoughtful but also formerly religious (which I have never been, so you give me insight into a mindset I’ve never had). From reading your other writings, it seems we arrive at similar conclusions but (I assume) have taken very different routes to getting there.
Re: people never having been close to religion -- completely agree. I was raised in an extremely blue area and definitely fell into the camp of “Republicans just want to control women and don’t care about babies after they’re born, so they can’t be sincere about protecting life.” I eventually joined a cult-like left wing group, likely more left wing than the wokest person you’ve met. Various aspects of being part of and leaving a pseudo-religion opened me to the idea that people are actually sincere in their beliefs. When I left, I was accused of many things, like not being willing to work on my internalized sexism (I'm a woman btw... not that women can't be sexist, but thought I'd add that for context). They couldn’t fathom that I actually just genuinely disagreed with their positions.
Re: Bad for utilitarian reasons — I agree both that it’s bad for utilitarian reasons and that this argument wouldn’t be very convincing if you believe abortion is murder. Murder is not really a topic we can “agree to disagree” on.
Re: bodily autonomy. If you examine this argument more carefully, I’m not sure it holds. The following quote responds to a thought experiment presented by Judith Jarvis Thomson. In the thought experiment, you are selected to be hooked up to a famous violinist to serve as her human dialysis machine. Without you, she will die. This commentary could also apply to the argument about not forcing anyone to donate organs, which is why I bring it up here:
~~~
“But if we follow Thomson, holding that the unborn child is akin to a violinist, then this premise also entails that the human fetus has a right not to have her body used in order to keep someone else alive (or a fortiori for any lesser purpose). But in abortion, at least as characteristically performed, the bodily integrity of the unborn child is violated. If we have a right not to be forced to lose one kidney to keep someone else alive, we surely must also have a right not to involuntarily lose both kidneys, lungs, and our life itself in order to help someone else not to be pregnant. If the "right to control your own body" means anything, it means that no one can dismember a person without that person's consent. But this is precisely what takes place in a typical abortion. As abortion defender Jeff McMahan points out, "The standard methods for performing abortions clearly involve killing the fetus: the fetus dies by being mangled or poisoned in the process of being removed from the uterus" (2002, 378). To mangle or poison a person's body without the person's consent is to violate that person's rights…
The intention/foresight objection is another reason to reject the violinist argument for abortion. In the case of the violinist, after [the violinist] is unplugged, she dies of her underlying kidney disease. By contrast, the unborn child prior to viability is typically suffering from no illness or disease. Abortion as typically performed is not a simple "detaching" of the unborn child who later dies from an underlying disease. Rather, the goal of the abortionist is to end the life of the unborn child. That is why a failed abortion" refers to the case in which an abortion is attempted but the child in fact does not die and is born alive. The goal of the abortionist, as a means or an end, is not simply to end a pregnancy (which is also accomplished by live birth). The goal of the abortionist is to kill, to make sure that the child in utero dies.
To make the violinist analogy more like abortion, imagine that we "detach" ourselves from [the violinist] by paying someone to remove her arms and legs and then decapitate her with the goal of making sure she is dead. Intentionally killing a person differs ethically from foreseeing that a person will die. Hitler ordered that German troops retreating from the Russian front be shot to death. Eisenhower ordered that American troops storm the beaches at Normandy. Both commanders knew that these orders would result in death. But Hitler intends to kill his soldiers and Eisenhower merely foresees the deaths of his soldiers. Given the ethical import of the intention/foresight distinction, abortion is not like the case of detaching from the violinist.” (P153-154, Abortion Rights: For and Against by Kate Gresley and Christopher Kaczor).
~~~
Curious on your thoughts, if you have time to provide them! Even if not, thanks for the engagement. I recently discovered your Substack and I’m really enjoying your writing!
Maybe where I'm arriving at is, if you truly believe that full human personhood begins at conception, then there is no argument that justifies abortion. If you believe that life begins at conception but abortion can be justified (though tragic), then you don't _really_ believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a born human being. The fetus has value and its interests should be considered, but it's not truly alive in the same way that a born human is alive.
I don't want to do the thing of telling people, "You don't really believe what you say you believe"... and yet.. that's kind of what I'm doing. Although I don't think people are lying about their beliefs. I just think most people haven't deeply grappled with the implications of their beliefs, evidenced by your stat that most people believe life begins at conception but also support abortion rights.
I think David Boonin has an argument in A Defence of Abortion for the claim that if you think it's okay to unplug a violinist (think extractive abortions or I think also abortions by pill) then you should also think that directly lethal forms of abortion are permissible at least in cases where they are safer.
I also think it's just ambiguous whether some abortions are cases of killing or failing to assist. Think someone who presses a button to remove all the oxygen from a nearby room it seems they've killed the occupant not failed to assist them.
There's also a different line of argument which says abortion is justified killing.
Think of someone killing a rapist in self defence. We can suppose the rapist has been drugged with some sort of mind altering chemical and is quite innocent it still seems permissible to kill them if this is the only way to defend yourself.
(This also seems to have quite extreme implications about the impermissiblity of conscription but whatever)
Anyway this comment has been very long and rambling I agree that bodily autonomy arguments are not as strong as people on the left seem to think. I am way more confident that a embryo is not a person than I am that Thomson style arguments succeed.
Yes, precisely this. I do think the strongest argument in favor of legalized abortion is that a fetus is not a person. People argue about whether life begins at conception, which I think is a waste — it obviously does. A fetus is an organic entity. The question shouldn’t be when life begins but when personhood begins. Just because something is alive doesn’t mean we grant it rights; otherwise animals would have the same rights as humans. Only people have full rights, and that is truly the crux of the argument.
I'm only realising after typing all this out that your comment is 8 months old. Goddammit.
Very good piece! You're right that too many pro-choicers don't seem to fully absorb that pro-lifers think abortion is *murdering babies*. So for many pro-lifers, the idea of legalized abortion seems insane. Moving the needle with most pro-lifers requires addressing that aspect of their belief. Just talking about personal choice and financial stability usually won't get very far.
However, if pro-lifers truly believe that fetuses have the same humanity as babies, then shouldn't they also consider abortion to be *first-degree* murder? Wouldn't an abortion be the moral equivalent of a mother hiring someone to strangle her 3-week-old baby in its crib? Yet I doubt many pro-lifers would be comfortable with abortions being punished with life sentences or the death penalty. This seems to imply that fetuses aren't actually fully human to most pro-lifers either. Of course, that doesn't mean fetuses deserve no protection at all, but it might help pro-lifers see that the issue is greyer than they think (even in their own minds).
Yes, that's a good point that even pro-lifers don't really see it as equivalent to murder. And even infanticide may be seen as less bad than regular murder. In this Louise Perry post she quotes Helen Dale saying:
"An echo of humanity’s infanticidal past is still found in jury rooms throughout the common law world: the reason we do not refer to infant-killing as “murder” is because in 1922, it was reclassified and re-named with passage of the Infanticide Act. This was done because juries refused to convict—even before 1920, when they were all male and the Crown case was overwhelming—and had been refusing to convict for some time. The only crime for which fewer convictions were recorded was abortion. In Scotland, there hadn’t been a successful abortion prosecution for 50 years. To this day, infanticide convictions are astonishingly rare."
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2023/10/we-are-repaganizing#:~:text=I%20do%20not%20wish%20to,want%20it%20to%20be%20legal.
Thanks for the link to that article. "First Things" is one of the best sources of Christian intellectualism. Unfortunately almost no professed Christians have even heard of it.
Both sides seem to ignore how horrific, life impairing a decision this must be for the women (and fathers) making it. I am pro choice as a matter of principle, but that also mean making sure there are as many other choices as possible, and fixing the problems that oead to young vulnerable people ending up in such a situation in the first place. No?
Substack should add a way for readers to recommend books and even pay the substacker to read it, if they so choose. I used to debate abortion heavily, and its a much richer and deeper topic than you realize. I highly recommend: Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights. It's written by a Catholic convert, but its arguments are purely scientific and legal. I'd even pitch in if you are willing to read it and write a review about it. Let me know.
A couple quibbles with your analysis:
For one, the organ analogies don't apply as this isn't just two random strangers: this is literally the mother, and family obligations come in. If abortion is legal, than there is no basis for family obligations of any kind. If the "mother" cant be "forced" to endure what every mother goes through, 9 months of yes grueling pregnancy and later birth, than why should fathers be forced to pay child support for 18 years of that child's life? Under the court of law, if the law can force a man to sweat, work a dangerous job, and give his BODY wages to his child's wellbeing...why cant it force a mother to do the same for 9 months? Abortion undermines all family obligations. The logical end result is more dystopian than people realize.
Also, nobody disagrees that the new zygote, taking the egg of the mother, the sperm of the father is a new unique human being. The DNA is unique and will stay with this human being throughout all if its life. The only religious aspect of the whole thing is actually just in assigning a high value to human beings at all stages of development (its also primarily religious against euthanasia as well). This is similar to the slavery debate: of course slaves were human beings, but Christians were the first to assign full value to those human beings. Now we all see it as obvious. Once we recognize that human development is a process that does not cease at the time of birth, then to insist that the unborn at six weeks look like the newborn infant is no more reasonable than to expect the newborn to look like a teenager. If we acknowledge as 'human' a succession of outward forms after birth, there is no reason not to extend that courtesy to the unborn, since human life is a continuum from conception to natural death. By confusing appearance with reality, may have inadvertently created a new prejudice, "natalism." And, like other prejudices such as sexism and racism, natalism emphasizes nonessential differences ("they have a different appearance") in order to support a favored group ("the already born").
Thanks Poncho, will consider reading the book you mention although I'm about to get into a new series of posts and may not get back to this topic for some time. In the meantime check out my post "Fetus Daddy" where I discuss my view on the father's obligation as well as how things would change if we had tech that enables the fetus' viability outside of the mother at a much earlier stage.
Responding to a few of your points:
1. "the organ analogies don't apply as this isn't just two random strangers: this is literally the mother, and family obligations come in."
We also don't force parents to give their organs to their children by law. We would shame someone who refused but it is not a legal obligation.
2. "If the "mother" cant be "forced" to endure what every mother goes through, 9 months of yes grueling pregnancy and later birth, than why should fathers be forced to pay child support for 18 years of that child's life?"
I don't think he should be forced either - see my views on this in my Fetus Daddy post
3. "nobody disagrees that the new zygote, taking the egg of the mother, the sperm of the father is a new unique human being."
The fetus is certainly a being with human DNA, and so I agree you can call it human life, but there is substantial disagreement on when that human life gets person status and all the rights which come with it. Some people think this happens at the moment of conception but many think it comes at some point later in development, such as when we expect that the fetus can feel pain or when it would be viable without the mother. For many human DNA is not enough on its own to grant a being person status, but there needs to be other characteristics present. I also think we can observe how people react to early miscarriages, even when they really want the baby, as a sign of the how differently very young fetuses are seen relative to highly developed fetuses or babies - there is a spectrum here and I think seeing a fetus as of the moment of conception as equal to a full person is not a common view and counter to most people's intuitions.
Let me know if you decide to read the book. Id be glad to throw in some "founding member" money for an honest review. I'm instinctively pro-choice, but mentally pro-life. If that makes any sense.
Quick response on #3: where else in history have we separated the scientifically undisputed term "human being" from the philosophical term "personhood"? Historically, they were mostly synonymous, except in a few rare cases that we now look back on with shame. Were blacks also human beings but not persons? It seemed so at the time. How about slaves in general? What about sex difference, are women yes human beings, but not full persons? What about the disabled? Notice the trend here. All abortion does is divide human worth not by color, or sex, or ability, but by stage of development. We were all zygotes at one point in our life. We all came from that same stage of development.
The only thing that's religious about this discussion is the absolute rock bottom premise that Judeo-Christians have that all human beings are equal in the eyes of God. So yes, the very vulnerable like the zygote and fetus, or the disabled, or the very old that no longer provides economic worth are just as valuable as say Steve Jobs, regardless of economic productivity. This is completely contrary to most peoples intuitions, but it remains the bedrock of Western Civilization.
The more you start dividing "human being" from "personhood", the more confusing and difficult the true logical limits will be to stomach. Take Peter Singer, the most consistent pro-choice philosopher out there, he doesn't just think abortion should be allowed, but also the right to kill already born infants with disabilities, and even the right for mothers to kill newborns without disabilities if the child is within a month of birth (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1999/09/11/a-professor-who-argues-for-infanticide/cce7dc81-3775-4ef6-bfea-74cd795fc43f/).
Sound shocking? It shouldn't. These are the true logical extremes of the pro-choice cause. (We all know what the true logical extremes of the pro-life cause are: incest, rape, etc...but few go the logical limit in pro-choice direction).
Thanks, will do!
I actually think there are good reasons to not assign full personhood to a fetus at an early stage of development - for instance it doesn't feel pain, doesn't have aspirations and isn't in relationship with any other people yet beyond the mother. But I do think where the line is drawn is somewhat arbitrary.
Regardless though, I think that bodily autonomy is the most fundamental right, and that preventing abortion, especially at an early stage, is a violation of that right. And as I've said we don't accept this as an appropriate violation in any other cases, including when the life of your own child depends on it.
Regarding the bodily autonomy argument, I recommend the response Francis Beckwith (author of the book recommended above) gave to the philosophical paper "unplugging the violinist". I can no longer access the PDF, but I'd highly recommend it. See here: :https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11656685/
My favorite response given is parental responsibility. This is not two strangers, one forcing the other to share their organs "in a vacuum". This is the mother undergoing a process/pregnancy that ALL mothers have went through throughout history. It's a "normal" process, part of human beings since the beginning of time. This is not something odd like organ sharing would be in isolated situations. Thus the legal foundation is based on familial obligations. She owes the unborn the birthing process based on her relationship as the mother to said unborn child. From a legal perspective, its really no different than forcing a father to work and provide his blood sweat and tears (wages) to his child for 18 years. Parental rights are unique. Not just for the mother (during pregnancy) but for the father as well. Where else can ones wages be garnished to feed another human being? All parental responsibilities are unique. If abortion releases the mother from her familial obligations during pregnancy, why couldn't it release the father? He is fundamentally doing the same: using his body to feed another "human being".
The argument from pain, aspirations, and relationship to others is significantly much weaker and is fully handled in the book recommended. Here is a snippet on pain, for example:
"There are several problems with this argument. First, it confuses harm with hurt and the experience of harm with the reality of harm. One can be harmed without experiencing the hurt that sometimes follows from that harm, and which we often mistake for the harm itself. For example, a temporarily comatose person who is suffocated to death "experiences no harm," but he is nevertheless harmed. Hence, one does not have to experience harm, which is sometimes manifested in hurt, in order to be truly harmed."
Overall good discussion, and appreciate the honest back and forth.
The autonomy of the body at its core assumes the primacy of individualism over familial and social responsibilities. While this is the dominant modern western framework, it is not a traditional or arguably human approach. Practically speaking many people use their autonomy to produce well beyond their individual needs creating abundance in their families and communities that provides for the young, indigent and foolish. People we view as good, do this irrespective of individual compensation for the social good.
The traditionalist view is simply that motherhood is a respected familial and social responsibility. Abortion (among other things) is fundamentally an abdication of those responsibilities placing self before family and society. Along with this comes conservative views of gender, sexuality and marriage. Motherhood is not the exclusive contribution of women (great female leaders are ubiquitous and the segregation of economic contributions are relatively recent), motherhood is a normative role. You needed (and need) many willing mothers for the stability and strength of the population especially when infant mortality and death in childbirth was common. Heroic motherhood was dieified or later made a religious example.
A combination of free sex and modern feminism degraded traditional motherhood to the point that population pyramids are inverting despite modern medicine. The "right" to individual autonomy makes the mistake that we achieve happiness or well-being from autonomy. People appear to be most happy when they willingly take on the responsibility of motherhood. When do social responsibilities become legal requirements? When culture begins to broadly suffer from widespread individual abdication.