The Abortion Debate is Toxic because of these Beliefs:

Pro-choicers and pro-lifers hate each other. Neither party seems capable of seeing eye to eye. Neither seems capable of entertaining the idea that the other might have some valid points. Both seem intent on smearing the other camp, and stripping them of any humanity. Why is this issue so divisive and why do we routinely fail to discuss the issue maturely?

The issue of abortion is inherently tricky. It is a tricky issue because it deals with an undefined time in human development, and stirs up all kinds of difficult metaphysical problems for us to solve. Yet those on both sides of the divide seem to believe the issue is obvious. After all, how else would they come to form such strong positions?

To the pro-choicer, those on the other side of the argument are sexist barbarians who are stuck in the dark ages. To them, the anti-abortionist wants nothing more than to control womens’ bodies and to oppress them at all costs. They are led by a group of powerful men, who through their sexism and bigotry want to strip away the rights of women.

And what about the pro-lifers? To them, the pro-choice camp is replete with murderous, sanatical baby killers. These degenerates are inimical to all that is good, and their beliefs will be the downfall of our civilization.

Considering these warped beliefs of each other, it’s no wonder these two camps hate each other. But the reason for their hatred does not stem from organically-grown beliefs. It stems from a wide embrace of bad rhetorical, an oversimplification of reality, and a wilful disregard for nuance.

So how did it come to this? How is it that something as nuanced as abortion has managed to divide nations into two equally hostile camps, both unwilling to listen to one another?

In other words, why is the abortion debate so toxic?

The toxic nature of the debate surrounding abortion is the result of false beliefs that have been wrought from horrible rhetoric and dishonest language. It is these beliefs that I wish to discuss in this article.

Why the Abortion Issue so Complex:

Before I get to these beliefs, it will first be helpful to discuss why abortion is such a nuanced subject.

For starters, abortion is complicated because nobody can decide how to classify an unborn baby. Is an unborn baby really alive? And should we treat that life in the same way as we do with other forms of human life?

To complicate matters, an unborn baby is not a static entity: it is always changing and developing. An egg that was fertilised just days ago, for example, is very different to a baby moments before birth.

Plus, the abortion issue forces us to grapple with that most mindboggling metaphysical question: ‘what is life?’

And even if we can answer that question, when precisely during the gestation period does that definition of life apply to the unborn?

Questions of life aside, the abortion issue requires us to consider deeply complicated questions concerning gender and society.

For example, should only mothers be the ones to decide on an abortion? Or should fathers have a say too? Does the asymmetry in the roles between parents during pregnancy justify total control on the part of the mother?

And regarding society, which is preferable? A society which has greater control over procreation but that may suffer lower birth rates as a result? Or one that believes all conceived human lives, regardless of the circumstances in which they will be born, should be begotten?

These are tough questions that would have even the most profound thinkers at odds with one another. So why do so many treat abortion as if it is a simple, no brainer?

Faulty Pro-Choice Logic

Many of the pro-choice arguments are based on faulty logic. This is not to say that there is no validity to the pro-choice position, and there are certainly some compelling pro-choice arguments out there. I merely want to point out some of the faulty logic behind some of the pro-choice arguments that seek to crudify the issue, and thus debase the quality of the debate.

False belief # 1 — Foetus = Part of a woman’s body

Perhaps the most common argument, or slogan, pedled by the pro-choice camp, is ‘my body, my choice’.

The false logic at the core of this argument, is that it equates a foetus, or unborn baby, with part of a woman’s body.

According to this logic, an unborn baby is nothing more than an extension of the mother’s body. Considered as such, it therefore follows that women ought to have full control as to what they do with that unborn baby, in the same sense that they have a choice in how they do their hair.

But equating a foetus with just another part of a woman’s body is not entirely accurate and fails to acknowledge the complexity of the issue.

An unborn baby in the womb is also distinct from its mother, and the degree to which it is distinct depends on its stage of development. We know, for instance, that foetuses after about 11 weeks are capable of independent movement. Moreover, we know that foetuses will develop into fully autonomous beings in due time, if nothing is to be done to interrupt the process. Thus, even in the very earliest phases of pregnancy an unborn baby, or zygote, is quite different from any other part of a woman’s body.

False belief # 2 — Foetus = No different to a sperm cell

Another false equivalency popularly touted by pro-choicers, is the argument that if we care about the unborn, we are bound to care about sperm cells as well if we are to remain consistent.

This argument essentially equates unborn babies to sperm cells.

Though often espoused for comic effect, many pro-choicers will still use arguments that go something like this:

‘Foetuses are no more than a collection of cells, no different to sperm cells. If we accept that foetuses are life forms that need to be protected, we must accept that sperm cells should be protected. Therefore, ejaculations should be prohibited unless they are to be performed for procreation, as wasted ejaculations represent wasted human life.’

A developing foetus is different from a sperm cell for a number of reasons, technicalities aside. Perhaps the most obvious is that sperm cells do not develop into babies.

Faulty Pro-Life Logic

At the other end of the spectrum, pro-life activisits make similar false equivalencies. Just like their opponents, the anti-abortionist is quick to oversimplify the issue and overlook any nuance.

False belief # 1 — Zygote/Embryo/Foetus = Baby

The more vociferous pro-lifers are quick to call pro-lifers baby killers. To terminate a birth at any stage, is to kill a baby, they claim.

The problem here is that babies, foetuses, and embryos are not exactly the same. Indeed, they vary greatly at all stages of development.

In the earliest stages of pregnancy, the zygote, as it is known, is little more than a collection of cells. After 4 weeks, the embryo phase is reached, in which organs are developed. After 11 weeks the embryo becomes a foetus, in which some independent movement can be observed and gender can be known. Towards the end of the gestation period, the foetus gains continues to develop and take on more of the characteristics of a baby until the day of the birth.

So whether or not you agree with abortion, you cannot honestly call it baby killing, as a zygotes, embryoes, and foetuses are not exactly babies. To call it thus is to oversimplify the issue.

False belief # 2 — Abortion at 4 weeks = No worse than abortion at 25 weeks

Many anti-abortionists will downplay the nuance of the abortion issue by stating that all abortions are equally montrous. Abortion is abortion, they will claim, and all are equally wrongs. After all, life begins at conception, they reason.

Again, this perspective overlooks the differences in the varying stages of gestation, and treats what is essentially a cluster of developing cells the same as a near fully developed baby.

Concluding Words

The reality is that abortion is a complex topic that will necessarily beget different perspectives. And it is not clear which perspective is correct without a serious consideration of the circumstances. But if we drop the rhetoric, the exaggerations, and the dishonest language that characterises the abortion debate, we would surely reach more enlightened conclusions, and be more capable of tolerating each others’ differences.