“‘Pro-Life Arguments Are Now Based on Scientific Evidence and the Pro-Choice Arguments Are Not’ — Stanley Fish”
By: Shelbi Wine
Tags: Morality, Politics, Abortion, Pro Life, Pro Choice

The quote displayed above was said by a man of the name Stanley Fish, a literary theorist, author, and legal scholar. It pertains to the debate of the century: abortion, and the logistics of its nature and its place in legislation. Those who fall under the “pro-life” category believe that life begins at conception, and that abortions are the removal of that life and is, therefore, the murder of a person. They feel as though the practice is wicked, and should be prohibited. On the other hand, people who are pro-choice believe a woman should have the right of choice when it comes to terminating a pregnancy. They may personally find the procedure immoral, but they do not think it is up to them to decide for someone else. This quote, claiming that pro-choice arguments utilize little scientific information, is grossly inaccurate. In fact, it is the contending side that lacks true data. Their arguments rely on ethical ideals rather than reliable studies and research. We can prove all of their presumptions delusive. Some of these being how abortion is not the murder of a protected person, the majority of operations are backed by legitimate reasoning, and banning abortions would only increase problems.

Let us first shut down the most considerable dispute: whether or not abortion is an act of murder. Foremost, we as the pro-choice side have to address the bit of truth the rival side holds. Essentially, life begins at conception. This does not, however, grant them constitutional rights nor does it place them equally or above the mother possessing it. In the renowned court case, Roe v. Wade, a case pinning a single, pregnant woman by the name of Norma McCorvey (better known under the title Jane Roe) against the abortion restrictions within the state of Texas, a conversation of fetuses in the constitution began. There was an argument between the two sides, specifically about the fourteenth amendment. They bickered back and forth about whether the statement, “[…] nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” applied to the unborn. Finally, the justices decided their combined opinion. “In Roe v. Wade all nine justices agreed that the use of ‘person’ in the Constitution always assumed a born person, and therefore that the 14th Amendment’s mention of person did not confer constitutional rights until after live birth” (blog.petrie flom.law.harvard.edu). You simply cannot call a fetus a person- it is a direct misuse of linguistics. As antecedently mentioned, life, in scientific terms, commences at conception. However, this is the establishment of life for a Homosapien. A Homosapien is our species, and can be used to describe all human life. Basic rights, though, are not guaranteed to all humans. We, me and you, are what are known as people, or persons; we can dig into complex ideas and utilize our evolved knowledge to comprehend topics. Fetuses are not people. There is a notable difference between being genetically human and being a person. “ It is persons who have a right to life. […] belonging to the species Homo sapiens is not per se morally significant unless it is connected with being a person” (siue.edu). Just because you are categorized as a human does not mean you qualify to be a person. What are the qualifications, you ask? That in itself is a highly controversial question. Glenn Cohen, a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, talks about the various philosophy’s surrounding this in a YouTube video titled, “Abortion and Personhood: What the Moral Dilemma Is Really About.” Most compelling being the “capacity X view,” which he describes as the following: “[…] in order to be a person you have to have X capacity.” This variable, X, of course, could be one of many criteria that people propose. “Is it the ability to think complex thoughts, the ability to plan and look towards the future, the ability to feel pain whether you understand it? Is it about continuity of an identity over time or is it merely being alive and breathing?” Cohen also revels in the theory of potentiality- if the potential of a human to have these principles is enough to call it a person. With this, he brings forward an analogy which explains the weakness of this notion. “Hydrogen and oxygen each have the potential together to become water, but does that mean they are water?” Obviously, hydrogen and oxygen separately are not water. They, when combining, can be, but alone are not. We can boil this all down to one truth: a fetus is not a person and is therefore not given the same viability rights as we are, making the opinion that the removal of it is murder null. Now, those willing to call abortion murder tend to be the same people who believe these women attain abortions as a means of contraception after mindless sexual activity- the truth is in the data.

The most common phrase I hear from extreme pro-life activists is, “They messed around, so they have to pay the price.” The most common statistic I hear is the data regarding the low percentage of abortions that are the result of rape and or incest. I admit that many pro-choice writers argue using situations where women and children are forced into pregnancies- and that is why I have abstained from mentioning it. I will say this data is not very accurate, on account of how invasive the question is; some women simply do not feel comfortable sharing the information, and others may not even consider themselves a victim of rape/do not know they have been assaulted (in situations where a man slips off protection without her knowledge or she was intoxicated). Aside from the invalidity of these statistics, the pro-life side completely ignores what these other reasons are, brushing them off as women getting pregnant when bored. In reality, though, it is a woman refusing to let the ineffectiveness of contraception and minor mistakes take over her future and potential. In a study of 11 major abortion providers in 2004, the following was found: “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%)” (guttmacher.org). Participants did not want to sacrifice their future, another person’s well being, their financial stability, or their mental health to manage a child. These are all coherent rationalizations, especially the revenue issue. “Some 75% of abortion patients in 2014 were poor (having an income below the federal poverty level of $15,730 for a family of two in 2014) or low-income (having an income of 100–199% of the federal poverty level)” (guttmacher.org). It becomes even more anticipated when looking at the poverty issue swarming the United States, and how it affects the children born into it. Even with abortions, an enormous amount of children have to grow up in poor conditions, and many of those have to suffer as a result. “More than 11 million children in the United States live in ‘food insecure’ homes, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). That means those families don’t have enough food for every family member to lead a healthy life” (nokidhungry.org). These families probably did not start in this position, but rather were thrown into it as a result of having their child. A study done in 2017 conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture revealed that raising a child from birth through age 17 costs, on average, $233,610- and after inflation costs, $284,570. Seeing as that was only to age 17, this does not include college. “CollegeBoard reports that public, four-year institutions in America cost each in-state student $20,770 for tuition and room and board. That figure jumps to $36,420 for out-of-state students” (smartasset.com). Imagine, already having to manage your own needs, and then having to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of dollars for an unplanned child. Moreover, the effects of poverty on developing minds are immense and even fatal- meaning that you are actually hurting these unplanned children. The American Psychological Association talks of links between children living in poverty and poor academic achievement, abuse, neglect, health problems, and behavioral and or emotional issues. The World Health Organization reported in 2018 that 45% of child deaths are results of causes associated with undernutrition. If you would like numbers, just look to Action Against Hunger: “At least 17 million children suffer from severe acute malnutrition around the world. Severe acute malnutrition is the direct cause of death for 2 million children every year.” That is literal millions of unnecessary deaths, all because families cannot afford enough to supply everyone. You could blame that on healthcare and like issues, but until you can fix those issues, you cannot abolish abortions. You are not saving those babies, you are shoving them into a life they cannot control, full of traumas, negligence, and challenges most will never overcome. Outlawing abortions will not only carve a path for a bitter life, but it will be a direct cause for the deaths of struggling, pregnant women in the country.

You have to take a moment to remember the reason abortion clinics were put in place; like all other things, there needs to be a demand to supply. Building on that assumption, let us imagine what life was like before these demands were met. Back when abortions were illegal, people would seek them in unsanitary places. “Many attempted dangerous self-abortion, such as inserting knitting needles or coat hangers into the vagina and uterus, douching with solutions such as lye, or swallowing strong drugs or chemicals” (ourbodiesourselves.org). Women with no other choice resorted to self-inflicted harm as an escape. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that, in just one year (1972), 13,000 women were estimated to have participated in these backstreet abortion procedures- resulting in at least 39 deaths. “[…] it’s impossible to know the exact number of lives lost. However, thousands of women a year were treated for health complications due to botched, unsanitary, or self-induced abortions, and many died. Others were left infertile or with chronic illness and pain” (ourbodiesourselves.org). Is it really fair to say that these women suffered excruciating pain just to avoid responsibility? If they went that far then, it is obvious the law would not stop them from continuing their solutions. The Guttmacher Institute finds, “The abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 women in countries that prohibit abortion altogether or allow it only to save a woman’s life, and 34 per 1,000 in countries that allow abortion without restriction as to reason — a difference that is not significant.” So, if anything, the abortion rate is higher in areas where it is illegal in comparison to places with specific facilities for it. Furthermore, there will be a higher mortality rate in areas where abortion is legalized- believe it or not- since women would not die pursing unsafe measures to rid of a pregnancy. You will be responsible for the deaths of thousands- even millions- of people if you keep advocating for abortions to be banned. Disallowing the operations will not stop them from happening- instead, it will make them more dangerous. About the only circumstances you will not be enhancing is the so-called “postabortion traumatic stress syndrome” that happens ensuing procedure.

The rival side uses copious different tactics to gain sympathy and agreeance towards their side. More than often enough they will rely on emotional targeting. Becoming an increasingly used argument is the idea that abortion will cause later trauma and long-lasting effects. Enthusiasts will link the predicaments with guilt, anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, substance abuse, eating disorders, or everyday triggers that make them spiral such as, “[…] skipping baby showers, avoiding the baby aisle at the grocery store, walking around the block to avoid a playground, or making excuses to escape events that include children or pregnant women” (ramaninternation.org). They all go off the assumption that those who acquire an abortion are, “minors or young women with insufficient life experience to understand fully what they are doing” (thoughtco.com). I do not see this as a reason to ban abortion. The younger generations are the ones who have the biggest reasons to require an abortion; they typically cannot afford the time necessary to raise children, lack financial independence to care for them, and do not want to throw out their education. Yes, they are inexperienced, and terminating a pregnancy should certainly be taken seriously. Does that mean we should take away the opportunity from those who need it most? Not at all. If anything, we can improve on education, teaching young teens about the logistics and possible outcomes as well as alternative solutions that may suit them better. Clinics should further their therapy and consultations to ensure a smooth and confident choice. To backpedal to the debate, though, there are multitudinous amounts of studies that contradict the claims about post-abortion syndrome. For example, United States General C. Everett Koop, initially in support of this idea, denied furthering research into the theory because “obstetricians and gynecologists had long since concluded that the physical sequelae of abortion were no different from those found in women who carried a pregnancy to term or who had never been pregnant. I had nothing further to add to that subject in my letter to the president” (guttmacher.org). As it so happens, Koop is exactly right. Listed on the same site is a study that was conducted to crack this code. “[…] the Royal Colleges of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' and of General Practitioners in the United Kingdom sponsored a major study that did address that fundamental question. […] The study’s authors concluded that those women who had an abortion following an unintended pregnancy were not at any higher risk of subsequent mental health problems than were women whose unintended pregnancy was carried to term.” On the American Psychological Association page, more statistics can be found to counterattack the mental health standpoint of abortion: “Women who are denied an abortion are more likely to initially experience higher levels of anxiety, lower life satisfaction and lower self-esteem compared with women who received an abortion.” This also makes sense, since being denied what should be a basic human right makes a woman feels as though they are nothing but baby-making machines that must carry out what “they began”. They should not have to let one mistake or even an instance they had no control over, change their entire life and inflict disturbance or trauma on someone else. Now, there are some studies that support the possibility of links between abortions and mental health declines. It was deduced by the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion (TFMHA) in 2008 that, “it is clear that some women do experience sadness, grief, and feelings of loss following termination of a pregnancy, and some experience clinically significant disorders, including depression and anxiety” (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). However, this does not mean abortions are the direct cause of these feelings. It is believable that a woman could experience negative feelings after an abortion- but the majority of those problems are the primary result of it. More plausible is that these women are being affected by the reaction of those around them. Terminating a pregnancy is a huge decision, and those who proceed with it should have support all around them. Instead, though, thanks to the narratives being pushed by the pro-life side, they are faced with ruthless discrimination. The opposing side continuously belittles and attacks these struggling teenagers instead of educating them. They threaten and scare them out of the decision by using talk of this “post-abortion syndrome” that will surely ruin their lives. People harass them- and these insults stay with them, and will haunt them. Most pro-choice activists will not argue that abortion can have long-lasting effects; They will instead clarify that these influences have more to do with society, and can be avoided with discussion and teaching.

The notion that pro-life movements are being increasingly backed up by science, while the pro-choice claims are beginning to rely on emotional games and statements has been and can be proven misleading and fraudulent. Science is our main ally in proving that abortion does not ensure the death of an innocent child. Ethical and legal studies help us decipher what makes life advanced and worthy of rights. Reliable examinations disprove the assumptions a growing number of people believe about those who receive abortions. Research into other studies shows that restricting terminations increases fatality percent as well as overall occurrence. Figures and data help discredit “postabortion syndrome” and contribute to finding solutions to the issues that abortion seekers do face. Wisdom is the leading tool that we, the pro-choice side, use to solidify each of our claims and answer the provocative questions that come with abortion. You have seen the facts, the data, the statistics, and have full capability to do your own research. Before you explore the realms of the internet, though, I want to leave you with a quote from a well known, pro-life, author and speaker: Frederica Mathewes-Green. “No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.”

— Frederica Mathewes-Green

Works Cited

Danielski, D. (1998, October 25). Deconstructing the Abortion License. Retrieved from http://www.deborahdanielski.faithweb.com/

Stanley Fish. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://cardozo.yu.edu/

Stanley Fish Quotes. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/stanley_fish_211660

Robertson, J. (2015, August 20). Fetal Personhood and the Constitution. Retrieved from blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu

14th Amendment. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Abortion. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.siue.edu/~evailat/el10.html

Big Think Youtube Channel. (2016, September 17). Abortion and Personhood: What the Moral Dilemma Is Really About. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ezS5vQ1j_E

Duhaime’s Law Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/L/Life.aspx

Michigan Court of Appeals. (1980, April 24). People v. Guthrie. Retrieved from https://casetext.com/case/people-v-guthrie-19

Finer, L., Frohwirth, L., Dauphinee, L., Singh, S., Moore, A. (2005, September 1). Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortons: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives. Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives

Induced Abortions in the United States. (2019 September). Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states?gclid=CjwKCAiAzuPuBRAIEiwAkkmOSGN_3Hq4XEFKyqGsgPp8UQm4NR3_Mj1KAuO9ccPMBu_Qluk9UIYnjxoCJX0QAvD_BwE

Kids in America Are Hungry. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts?gclid=CjwKCAiA8ejuBRAaEiwAn-iJ3lr6kqL4RNIL1vyvKomKDwinETepZxItdXBhGMFkeZeCYUksSFtNSxoC2H0QAvD_BwE

Smith, L. (2019, December 10). The Average Cost of Raising a Child. Retrieved from https://smartasset.com/retirement/the-average-cost-of-raising-a-child

Global Poverty and Hunger. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.actionagainsthunger.org/global-poverty-hunger-facts?gclid=CjwKCAiAzuPuBRAIEiwAkkmOSKtvtgcWyoeT0YkmMktVJeA1lNFqGC_AVcVEEUKCKLqwMrJOqBRKcRoCrsoQAvD_BwE

OBOS Abortion Contributors. (2018, May 18). History of Abortion in the U.S.. Retrieved from https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book-excerpts/health-article/u-s-abortion-history/

Gold, R. (2003, March 1). Lessons from Before Roe: Will Past be Prologue?. Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003/03/lessons-roe-will-past-be-prologue

Induced Abortion Worldwide. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide

Abortion PTSD. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://ramahinternational.org/abortion-ptsd/

Lowen, L. (2019, June 23). Key Arguments From Both Sides of the Abortion Debate. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/arguments-for-and-against-abortion-3534153

Reardon, D. (2018, October 29). The Abortion and Mental Health Controversy: A Comprehensive Literature Review of Common Ground Agreements, Disagreements, Actionable Recommendations, and Research Opportunities. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6207970/

Cohen, S. (2006, August 1). Abortion and Mental Health: Myths and Realities. Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2006/08/abortion-and-mental-health-myths-and-realities

Abortion and Mental Health. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/

Mathewes-Green, F. (1996, July 28). Seeking Abortion’s Middle Ground. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1996/07/28/seeking-abortions-middle-ground/f04dd815-967d-4dbe-a28f-6e1b73ea6d1f/

Effects of Poverty, Hunger and Homelessness on Children and Youth. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pi/families/poverty