Opinion: Why we have to stop calling it the “pro-life” argument.
Bob Korn / Alamy Stock Photo. All rights reserved
On June 24th 2022 in the USA, 5 Supreme Court Judges made the decision to overturn the landmark ruling of Roe v Wade. This was the ruling in 1973 that granted women in all 50 states access to safe abortions. Pretty much since that day, there have been people - largely followers of Christianity - who have fought to end this right, often using religious texts or beliefs to bolster their argument. They are self proclaimed “pro-life” activists.
But how can they possibly be pro-life when the removal of person’s right to choose whether or not to stay pregnant quite literally costs lives?
When compared to 10 of the most high income countries, women in the USA are the most likely to die from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth. In 2018 the USA saw 17.4 deaths per 100,000 births, and are ranked 54th in the world for maternal mortality. And these are the numbers when women had the choice to carry to term or not. Of the 23 countries where abortion is prohibited, 21 of them have data for maternal mortality rates. There is only one with a lower rate than the USA.
Some may argue many of these countries don’t have access to the same level of healthcare that is available in the USA and it’s that which causes the higher rates of maternal mortality and nothing to do with the access to abortions. But even if we totally discount that the USA currently has such high rates of mortality and just look at access to healthcare, research done in 2021 showed that 46 million - 1 in 5/18%- Americans cannot afford necessary healthcare. And that is only the average. When broken down by ethnicity that was 29% for Black Americans and 21% for Hispanic adults. White Americans were at 16%.
When you put that together it becomes fairly clear that when you combine a lack of access to healthcare to carry to term, and no access to a safe abortion, you end up with women dying. Women who were already alive. How can you possibly be pro-life when you’re happy to sacrifice womens lives for your cause?
What if we accept then that it’s not about the women and it’s about children, can they then claim to be pro-life? Not really. On any day in the USA there are approximately 424,000 children in the foster care system. And in 2019 672,000 children spent time in foster care. Most of the time the children are in care for at least a year and a half, and around 5% of children in care have been there for 5 years or longer. Astonishing figures show that in the USA, upwards of 90% of foster children will come into contact with the juvenile justice system before leaving child welfare, in what is known as the foster care to prison pipeline, and this especially a risk for Black youth, LGBTQ+ youth, and youth with mental illnesses.
There are many reasons children might end up in foster care. Forcing women to birth a child they: can’t afford, do not want, cannot care for, or came to be as a result of trauma, will do nothing to reduce the number of children put into this system. How can you possibly be pro-life when you’re happy to subject a child to an existence of rejection?
Okay, so what if it’s not about children or women, what if these people are simply advocating for a clump of cells, can they be called pro-life then? Well, no, not really. Up to 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, or a non-viable pregnancy. Non-viable means that there is 0 chance the pregnancy can end in a child being born alive or able to survive. And this has different meanings at different stages.
Before 6 weeks, it can mean that Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG) levels are not increasing normally.
After 6 weeks, a normal fetal heart indicates a viable pregnancy. A fetal heart with no heartbeat at any point is called fetal demise.
Before 22-24 weeks, a non-viable pregnancy is when a baby delivered has no chance of survival, even if there is still a heartbeat in the uterus.
That means that if those cells don’t develop as they should, and the potential baby ends up developing without life sustaining organs without access to an abortion, and once carried to term, that baby would have to be born simply to suffer for a short while before dying. Even if a pregnancy is viable, no access to abortions means women who discover the child is most likely going to be born with painful lifelong medical conditions will be forced to birth a child they know will have a lifetime of suffering ahead of them. How can you possibly be pro-life when you aren’t concerned about inflicting pain and suffering?
There’s so much more that could be put here. The people who claim to be pro-life and also opposed gun control, because a baby has to be born but nothing will be done to stop them being murdered in school. The fact that Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, North and South Dakota, and Oklahoma have banned abortion without any exceptions for the health or safety of the mother. The fact that Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North and South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas have banned abortion without any exceptions for rape. The fact that Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North and South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas have banned abortion without any exceptions for incest.
We could even get philosophical and get into the question of “what if the aborted cells would have been the person to cure cancer.” and say well what if all the babies that could have been made right this second but weren’t because a couple chose to go for a walk instead of having sex, could have been the one to cure cancer? Life is a game of chance and probability. If my parents had been too busy that night to get busy that night I wouldn’t be here typing this, it’s all luck.
But it comes down to this - you cannot be pro life when the consequences of your agenda for so many is death. Either death in child birth, death from complications of pregnancy, or death from mental health issues associated with abuse, sexual assault, or from the trauma of having to carry a child as a transgender man. You cannot be pro life when the consequences of your agenda for so many is mental health crises, financial devastation, homelessness, and isolation.
These people are not pro-life, because they are not concerned with real lives. They are simply anti-choice.