The Burden Of Proof Lies On You, The Pro-Lifer

One of my favorite things to do when I'm bored or trying to kill time is to peruse forums that center around controversy. Current events blogs provide the best entertainment on an uneventful day. I don't usually get involved in the arguments; I'm content to be a spectator unless something particularly egregious or fallacious presents itself. I also have a bad habit of getting disinterested in the middle of a discussion, especially if it's filled with the same logical fallacies and dishonesties that I've dealt with time and time again, and just leaving it out of pure boredom. I hate having to repeat myself.

My favorite forum to peruse is the pro-choice group on Facebook. I don't get tired of it. If you happen to have already read this entry, you'll know that I am pro-choice. One of the things that I have noticed lately is that many of the pro-lifers I encounter seem to be woefully uninformed about the realities of reproduction, pregnancy, birth, abortion, and adoption. By no means am I claiming that all of them are this misguided (and plenty of pro-choice people don't seem to know much either), but it seems common enough, to say the least. But the pro-choicers are not the ones advocating such an invasion of women's lives and bodies, which is why I say that the burden of proof that abortion should be outlawed lies on the pro-lifers.

I'm not sure if it's really understood just how devastating a measure outlawing abortion would be. It would be the government essentially mandating compulsory organ donation, to an end that could be detrimental to the woman in question mentally, physically, emotionally, socially, and/or financially. It's often said that forced gestation is a way of making the woman “take responsibility” for sex by paying with her body. But this line of thought is not enforced in any other law we have in the United States. If a drunk driver hits a pedestrian, we don't harvest his organs against his will to save his victim's life. He'll pay for his actions, certainly, but not with his flesh.

Outlawing abortion is a drastic measure. It gives the government a frightening amount of power over women's bodies. Attempts to use the law to personify the unborn could very easily and quickly get out of hand; if an embryo is legally a person and a dependent, then abortion would be murder. Smoking while pregnant could be child abuse. Forgetting to take your prenatal vitamins or failing to count kicks in the third trimester could be neglect.

And of women who miscarry? Perhaps every miscarriage and chemical pregnancy should be reported to police and investigated to confirm that it was not the result of foul play; after all, every woman who has miscarried a pregnancy wants nothing more than to be questioned relentlessly about it by strangers, and I'm sure that state governments would love to pay for the genetic testing required to prove that, like up to 70% of all miscarriages, it was the result of chromosomal defects and in no way the fault of the woman. Once we start legislating in favor of the fetus with no regard to the woman it gets its nourishment from, then we could all too easily start legislating what pregnant women can and can't eat, drink, or do.

Considering how drastic it would be to outlaw abortion, and considering the fact that it involves restricting the rights and bodily autonomy of pregnant women in a way that no other citizens have to endure, the burden of proof lies on the pro-lifers, not the pro-choicers, to show that these laws are necessary. And considering how many of the pro-lifers I've encountered that don't have even basic knowledge about reproduction (just today I read the rants of a fellow who not only claimed that “menses” and “ovulation” were the same thing, but that a woman is most fertile during her period), well...I'm underwhelmed, to say the least.

It's not that I don't take pro-lifers seriously just because they are pro-lifers. That's not it. What I'm tired of is arguing with people who claim that it's “only” pregnancy as if it's a cakewalk for every woman; yet these same people haven't taken the time to thoroughly research the facts and implications of what they are supporting. You want all women to endure the short- and long-term side effects and risks of pregnancy, but you don't want to know what those side effects and risks are? You want women to “just” give up their babies for adoption, yet you haven't done the research on the state of adoption in this country? You think it's fair to demand the lives and bodies of these women, but it's too much trouble to try to understand the scope of what you are demanding?

Ideally, I would like every person that identifies as pro-life to take the time and initiative to thoroughly research: the reproductive cycle, including the mechanics and statistics related to implantation and conception; embryonic and fetal development in detail, not just a quick one-page summary of what happens in each trimester; birth control methods and statistics; pregnancy in detail (there are tons of books on this, many written for pregnant women); teenage pregnancy and its effects on individuals as well as society; miscarriage and stillbirth; maternal mortality; infant mortality; prenatal care and its cost and availability to various populations; abortion methods and statistics (there is no such medical procedure as "partial birth abortion"); illegal abortion methods and statistics; rape statistics and law; abstinence-only sex education; comprehensive sex education; abortion law; late-term abortion; the state of adoption and foster care in this country; alternative reproductive methods such as in vitro fertilization; stem cells; breastfeeding; myths about pregnancy; myths about abortion; postpartum depression and psychosis; depression and mental illness in pregnant women (and what it means when a woman with emotional and mental issues has to stop taking her medication for the sake of the fetus); and the short- and long-term costs of unplanned pregnancy on individuals and society as a whole. Hopefully they would find this information from objective sources. I also think it would be beneficial to read material that is written for pregnant women, even if they themselves are not female or pregnant.

I'm not of the “If you don't have a uterus/ have never been pregnant, you can't have an opinion” camp. I've always found that to be a bit silly. I'm of the “If you don't understand the implications of what you are supporting, then why are you supporting it?” camp. You need to know about this stuff before you can make an informed decision. And an informed decision is absolutely necessary in an issue as powerful as this.

For instance, how many of the pro-lifers that believe rape and incest victims should have access to safe abortion actually know anything about rape and incest? How frequently is it reported? How are survivors typically treated when they choose to press charges? How many rapists actually spend time in jail? I don't see how putting a pregnant rape survivor on the stand and having her relive her experience for all the public to see, not to mention force her to experience the trauma of having the rapist's lawyers attempt to prove that she is either a liar or somehow asked to be raped because of her clothes or sexual history, is in any way compassionate or in the best interests of the woman. Not to mention the time that the trial and any appeals would take, which may very well prevent her from being able to get an abortion anyway, even if she "deserves" one. Also, if abortion were only allowed for rape victims, what would keep desperate women and girls from making false accusations, which in turn makes it even more difficult for all rape victims to find justice?

A popular statistic for pro-lifers is the claim that only 1% of pregnancies are the result of rape. This does not take into consideration the fact that the vast majority of rape survivors will never report their rapes, especially if it occured within a relationship or marriage. There isn't even a consensus on a definition of rape. Hell, in Maryland, it's not even legally considered rape if a woman changes her mind during sex and asks her partner to stop, but the man ignores her and keeps going for as long as he wants. Once penetration has occurred, a woman's right to say "no" is revoked until her partner climaxes. I consider that rape, even if my state does not, so the stats are definitely not going to accurately reflect reality.

But I digress.

I get frustrated when people cite metaphysical reasons against abortion. We cannot legislate on the basis of whether or not something has a soul. Souls do not exist in the eyes of the law, and that's how it must be. Anyone who thinks that they want religious law to become actual law has not thought it through; as they say, be careful what you wish for or you may just get it. I don't know any Baptists who would want to live under Catholic law, or Muslims who would want to live under Judaic law, or atheists who would want to live under Scientology's law. Legislating according to religious laws would mean that we would have to select a specific religion, and then a specific sect within that religion, and then a specific church within that sect (beliefs can vary wildly from church to church, especially in Christianity), and follow their rules. No one wants that, I'm sure (unless it was their church that gets to rule the country).

The personal reasons that someone may have for opposing legal access to abortion should be taken into consideration with what they know about abortion, pregnancy, and women. Too many people seem to oppose it because of a gut reaction or theological dogma - and that's perfectly fine, for you or anyone else to be uncomfortable with abortion. But to legislate on it requires more evidence than just a gut feeling or religious conviction. You have to demonstrate an actual need for leglislation and a plausible plan of enforcement. And that is something that the pro-life movement has failed to produce thus far.