On Choosing Life: Does Pro-Life Legislation Align with its Namesake Cause?
There is perhaps nothing more precious to humanity than our own existence. We cherish the heartbeats, the path of electric current across synapses, the twinkle in an eye, and for this reason, a video of emaciated children in Sudan or a crying baby in Gaza is at the forefront of many charity campaigns. Life is indeed precious, there is no denying that; and yet, not all life can be preserved. Triage nurses are forced to order patients’ care by severity, to choose the life of greater worth: an elderly man having a stroke, or a newborn unable to breathe; soldiers must choose between their injured comrade or a displaced orphan to shield from bullets. To choose one life over another is immensely difficult, and comparably, it is no wonder abortion seems unspeakable and injust.
Much of the pro-life argument surrounds this empathetic and deeply caring aspect of humanity. Tough decisions are made in times of disaster and urgency; we lose too many people to this indisputable fact, so why must we lose more to abortion? The mere mention of this procedure awakens sadness in many, as a fetus begins to resemble so many of the traits we view as innately human. Once it possesses a heartbeat, a brain, and the beginnings of arms and legs, it is no surprise that one starts to feel the same attachment they would to a newborn baby.
The philosophical discussion surrounding the transition from cells to life is a deeply complex one. There are those who believe life begins at conception and others who believe it commences at birth, and these convictions vary intimately between each person, such that it would be impossible to form a consensus on when life does in fact begin. Not merely is consensus impossible, but it is not something we should strive toward, rather, we must endeavor to reconcile our conviction with tangible policy and procedure.
For those to whom the existence of human life is of utmost importance, the very beginnings of life in the womb are as significant as those already born. This position is honorable, and yet, impractical in a modern world. If you were trapped in a burning hospital with time to save either 10,000 frozen fertilized eggs or 10 newborn babies, which would you choose? It is theorized that human instinct would make the decision for you: through Alexis Agnew’s Honors Thesis on the abortion, her analysis of Aristotle’s philosophy relies on the contextual morality within human mores. The scream of a newborn child as their body becomes enveloped in flames is utterly devastating, and it would be cruel to let them suffer in favor of allowing frozen embryos the possibility to become what that baby already was: an independent being.
Yet what often falls on deaf ears is that one does not necessarily forgo their pro-life values by choosing the baby instead of the thousands of embryos. An embryo’s potential for independent and homeostatic life is understandably precious, and can be still valued as highly as a newborn even if one sacrifices them for the baby. Strong morality is honorable, but impractical, as such situations rely on more than general conviction alone (Agnew). Within the analytical capabilities of the human consciousness lie the understanding of distinction as it pertains to circumstance.
Many who are staunchly pro-life adhere their allegiance to the purest definition of existence; they contextualize their humanity across all stages of human development. Yet much of this belief surrounds a scenario of utopia that evades reality. If one only values the potential for life, they would choose to save the 10,000 embryos, saving net 9,990 lives. But if, in this circumstance, you were immediately pulled by the cries and blistering of the newborns, then you moved further into your conception of morality. Here, you held the same morals: you chose life; but hereafter you applied this morality to the current moment. In such situations we must look beyond our core beliefs into specific circumstances, and this applies to abortion as well.
You may not have thought, in the moment, about the embryos’ feelings: how they are frozen in development unlike the baby, and so ending their potential for life would affect no difference in their physical feelings or cognition. More likely you heard the babies and jumped into action. A human does not know what it is like to be frozen – not merely in place but in development – yet still capable of resuming growth, because if we ever froze, we would die. Humans relate instead to sounds of a human experiencing pain, burning in their lungs, fear of the unknown. Since we can empathize with these experiences, seeing them applied to helpless beings with such a brief time on earth makes the situation far too tragic to second-guess.
So saving these children, allowing them a second chance at life, does not forsake this view of morality; in fact it might be closer in line with it. Going beyond the very existence of life and onto the given quality of existence allows you to save those undergoing less pain. The embryos may still hold great value in one’s heart, but in such a scenario, the human mind is forced beyond its basic equilibrium view of morality. Being that the many cases of abortion likewise transcend our ideals, can adjacent legislation remain steadfast, or does it contradict with this worldview?
Like the pro-life standpoint, pro-life legislation is ideal in the most theoretical of terms. Opposition to the movement often dubs these beliefs as “pro-birth,” and they are not exactly wrong. Regardless of personal conviction, the existence of this legislation as its own entity is amoral, and therefore, purely concerned with the fetus’ birth, irrespective of tangible circumstance. As a result, pro-birth or “anti-abortion” legislation offers no intrinsic exception for circumstances that may in fact align with the pro-life standpoint.
Ectopic pregnancy is one in which an embryo attaches outside of the uterus and thus usually fails to become viable (“Ectopic Pregnancy, Miscarriages, Medical & Surgical Abortions… What’s the Difference?”). According to Women’s Clinic of Atlanta, these pregnancies incur far greater risks than the average pregnancy, and are more likely to cause harm to the mother or fetus. As a result, most ectopic pregnancies are not ultimately viable, requiring a removal procedure to prevent further harm to the mother. In this instance, intervention is often medically necessary so that the body is not forced into violent miscarriage or worse (“Ectopic Pregnancy, Miscarriages, Medical & Surgical Abortions… What’s the Difference?”). Yet while Georgia laws contain a distinction between abortive procedure and removal of ectopic pregnancy, this is not always the case.
Since such a pregnancy is not viable, the “pro-life” argument is effectively irrelevant: as fetal progression is impossible, human morality looks beyond that initial belief and onto the changing circumstance. Legislation, however, has no such ability to adapt as human intelligence can, resulting in gray areas often exploited in direct opposition to life. In November, Porsha Ngumezi was documented by the Texas Tribune as the third woman to die of blood loss after anti-abortion legislation denied her the ability to safely abort a fetus that she ultimately miscarried. These very instances defy the idea of ideological differences between “pro-life” and “pro-choice;” Porsha fully intended on carrying her pregnancy to term and only looked to abortive procedures as a last resort while coping with the loss of a baby she wanted so dearly (Presser). One can disavow pro-choice legislation, but it is undeniable that pro-life legislation did not save a life here, it took one when the former might have saved one.
Stories like Porsha’s are far from too common. In areas of steadfast pro-life legislation, statistics demonstrate clear correlation between instances of maternal mortality and poor access to methods of pregnancy termination. One of the groups most affected by abortion legislation is the black and brown community. Research by top professors at several American universities analyze the disproportionate impact that abortion bans have on marginalized communities who are unable to evade anti-abortion legislation in their area. They estimate that a total abortion ban would result in a “21% increase in maternal death and a 33% increase for non-Hispanic Black individuals” (Kheyfets). From this perspective, attempts to ban abortion nationwide would not support pro-life ideals, demonstrating the divide between intent and practice.
Where pro-life legislation is unwavering toward women at risk of death, a pro-life worldview discerns nuance where laws often fail. But when the mother’s life is not directly threatened by pregnancy, is this nuance warranted? In the context of general abortion, strong conviction understandably divides pro-life and pro-choice. Each adopts a somewhat tunnel-visioned approach to their side, opting for unmitigated focus on their moral view – which, for its righteous nature, is deserved. Yet these rabbit holes into which we plummet do little but detract from our contextual understanding of our personal morality. No matter how hard we try, the morality of others is unlikely to be swayed.
Whether or not one agrees, abortion will always happen, and when banned in full, regulation and safety cannot be ensured. The estimated increase in maternal mortality comes alongside the 68,000 lives already lost annually to unsafe abortion (Kheyfets). The desperation that results from lack of accessibility is a leading factor in extreme and harmful procedures that inflict undue cruelty onto the mother and fetus. As exemplified time after time, illegal activity is nearly impossible to regulate, and therefore no level of restriction against abortion will prevent these statistics. Perhaps one must then decide if the regulated and safe termination of a fetus is more ethical than the many dangerous methods to which one could resort.
Nevertheless, the insistence upon alternative solutions remains a leading roadblock in consideration of this ethical scenario. Studies exploring fetal sensory capacity offer conclusive support for fetuses feeling pain throughout most of their development (Derbyshire). From analysis of this fact alone, the act of abortion causes painful death to a fetus and thus is morally reprehensible to any whose aim is supporting life at all costs. The possibility of anaesthesia during abortion is ever-expanding (Derbyshire). This innate sentience toward pain makes the procedure cruel and unjust, yet once again, there are other factors that also require attention.
Embracing the cruelty in terminating life capable of pain does not, however, exclude the possibility of abortion’s circumstantial ethics. The challenge is to discern whether culmination or termination of pregnancy better supports life in each scenario. Some will argue that the mere public support behind access to abortion should stand as a valid consideration for the standards of life and autonomy that pro-life legislation would deny the population at large. Yet, understandably, it is widely opined by the opposition that personal wishes should not supersede the right of a fetus to life. Some who fight in the name of life thus become strong proponents of adoption and foster care as a solution to unwanted pregnancies.
Like the ideal of nurturing all life into existence, this “solution” remains highly idealistic, however. Studies demonstrate that foster care and adoption are not viable solutions to abortion, as the latter processes are lengthy, forcing many into the former’s broken program. Mary Ramsay-Iriving, Master of Counselling and a Certified Canadian Counsellor, explores the widespread consequences of the foster and adoption systems throughout North America. Her research concludes that the phenomenon of insecure attachment and instability within foster care contributes to detrimental mental, emotional, socioeconomic, and future outcomes (Ramsay-Irving). The higher rates of suicide, substance abuse, and sexual and emotional trauma in former fostered children are largely attributed to these findings (“Child Welfare and Foster Care Statistics”).
Of course foster care is an important resort for many children who would otherwise be unhoused, yet the quality of life it cultivates is often detrimental, resulting in a life of undue trauma and strife. Reform is always mentioned with respect to this system, and yet progress comes too little, too late. If more children are pushed into foster care as a result of expanding pro-life legislation, the overwhelm would likely prevent any reforms from coming to fruition, promoting cyclic failure. Is it then better to prevent the momentary pain of abortion, or to refuse a child to be born into an unjustly difficult life?
Abortions will occur regardless of any legislative happenings, this is the unfavorable truth. Since it is unavoidable, so too is a true pro-life position. There is no correct answer, so no matter where we draw the line between acceptable and criminal, not all life can be preserved. What must then be decided is what legislation best preserves life. The answer may not be expressly pro-choice bills, but if the laws dubbed pro-life fail to discern nuance in the name of life, they cannot possibly stand for humanity in line with our righteous morals. Our votes continue to determine how abortion occurs in the United States, and we must not minimize the gravity of this responsibility. Politicians will forever sway their leanings and appeal to our morals, but with an understanding of the pitfalls in pro-life legislation, we must ask ourselves: what truly aligns with my conscience? What truly promotes life?
Works Cited
Agnew, Alexis J. “A Philosophical Look into the Morality and Legality of Abortion.” Georgia Southern Commons, digitalcommons.
“Child Welfare and Foster Care Statistics.” The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 16 May 2022, www.aecf.org/blog/child-
Derbyshire, Stuart W G. “Can Fetuses Feel Pain?” BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), U.S. National Library of Medicine, 15 Apr. 2006, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/
“Ectopic Pregnancy, Miscarriages, Medical & Surgical Abortions… What’s the Difference?” Women’s Clinic of Atlanta, 21 Oct. 2022, www.womensclinicofatlanta.com/
Kheyfets, Anna, et al. “The Impact of Hostile Abortion Legislation on the United States Maternal Mortality Crisis: A Call for Increased Abortion Education.” Frontiers in Public Health, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 5 Dec. 2023, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/
Presser, Lizzie, et al. “A third woman has died under Texas’ abortion ban as doctors reach for riskier miscarriage treatments.” The Texas Tribune, 27 November 2024, www.texastribune.org/2024/11/
Ramsay-Irving, Mary. “The Foster Care Systems Are Failing Foster Children: The Implications and Practical Solutions for Better Outcomes of Youth in Care.” Canadian Journal of Family and Youth / Le Journal Canadien de Famille et de La Jeunesse, journals.library.ualberta.ca/