https://newrepublic.com/article/153942/criminalization-womens-bodies-conservative-male-power
One of the more contentious political issues of our day has to do with the morality and legality of abortion. Regardless of which side you take, there are certain arguments that you should stop using because they’re really, really bad. Be sure to also check out the companion piece, Three Pro-Life Arguments That Really Suck.
1. Pro-lifers just want to control women’s bodies
It’s not uncommon for some who support abortion access to accuse those who don’t (who are assumed to be men) of being part of an insidious plot to control women’s bodies.
But in a 2019 Gallup poll concerning Americans’ self-identified positions on abortion, 51% of women considered themselves to be pro-life–higher than their male counterparts at 46%. As for the pro-choice position, 48% of men self-identified as pro-choice and 43% of women did. That’s a pretty even split for an issue that’s supposedly all about making women broodmares for a right-wing fundamentalist Christian state.
In other words, statistically speaking gender has almost no impact on one’s view of abortion. Being able to get pregnant doesn’t make women more likely to be pro-choice, nor does having male genitalia make men more likely to advocate for the supposed “war against women.”
The fact that only women can get pregnant does make abortion a gendered issue, but only incidentally. The arguments used against abortion by pro-life men are the same arguments used by pro-life women, and they center around whether or not it’s acceptable to take unborn human life. When pro-choice advocates say otherwise it only serves to silence reasonable discussion and paint those who disagree with them as sexist.
2. Without abortion, more babies would be born in disadvantaged situations
This kind of an argument commits a common logical fallacy called “begging the question.” That means that it assumes the very point which is being debated–that the unborn don’t have a right to life. Think of it this way: if a baby was born into poverty, would it be okay to take that baby’s life after it’s born? If a pro-choicer would say no, and most no doubt would, then why would they say it’s okay to do it before the baby is born?
The answer is clearly that they don’t think the human fetus has a right to life. In which case, why are they making arguments about babies being born into poverty when the real issue being debated is whether or not it’s okay to terminate a fetus?
This argument is similar to another bad pro-choice–that when abortion is regulated, lots of women necessarily die–which has been thoroughly fact-checked by this Washington Post article.
3. How can something that looks like that be human?
Pro-choicers sometimes argue that the unborn aren’t really human because they look different than developed humans–perhaps because they’re small or their features differ from the features of adult human beings.
However, arguments which seek to dehumanize others based on appearance have never served us well in the past. When we look back through the corridors of time at those who argued that ethnic minorities, the disabled, and little people are somehow less human, we rightly feel indignant. So why do we use these same kinds of arguments to justify killing unborn humans?
In addition, does level of development really tell you about a human being’s innate value? If so, does that mean teenagers are less valuable than adults because their brains are still developing, that children are less valuable than teenagers because their sexual organs aren’t developed yet, or that people who read Marvel Comics are less valuable than those who read DC? If not, why should we take it for granted that the unborn are less valuable just because they aren’t as developed as toddlers?
The fact that the unborn look “less human” to us doesn’t change the fact that from a biological perspective they are distinct human lives. The real issue is whether the circumstances of pregnancy somehow warrant taking the lives of unborn humans.