On September 1st, 2021, Senate Bill 8 in the state of Texas went into effect. This bill created a set of parameters that was able to circumvent the language used in previous judicial decisions that allowed greater access to abortion. Since this bill was sent to the floor of the Texas Senate, and even more so after it became law, social media sites like Instagram and Twitter have run amuck with various arguments and points that are widely held but lack reason. I will be addressing a few of those here.
Instagram stories, from my experience, especially in the wake of George Floyd's death, have become a breeding ground for coarse opinions and flashy-looking infographics. The activist infographic is commonplace on Instagram, where its creators make several slides and write, usually in a bubbly font and pastel colors, slogans and ideas (sometimes with supporting evidence). If you are unfamiliar with what I am referring to, the Instagram account @impact is a good example of this type of content at the time of this writing. A quick search on Instagram under #abortionrights finds the following arguments that I will be addressing here.
“Men shouldn't be making laws about women’s bodies.” This argument is used to invalidate any male’s pro-life opinion by saying that since abortion and unwanted pregranacy is an issue that only affects women, men lack the empathy and relevancy to govern and legislate this issue. This is in the same vein as those who believe that only those of certain races or backgrounds can speak on certain issues because of their lived experience. This is wrong and, in this case, sexist. Rather than address the arguments of the opposition, they try to invalidate them as being incapable of having a productive thought. This argument also completely ignores the 45% of women who support some restrictions to abortion and 19% of women who support a total ban on aboriton according to data collected by Gallup in 2021. These numbers are strikingly similar to male opinions on the subject, meaning sex plays less of a role in abortion opinions than implied by this argument. If men took a step back from the abortion debate and let women handle it, the outcome would most likely not change.
“The pro-life movement is rooted in racism.” I have seen this argument presented in many different ways. The most compelling Instagram infographic used sources from NPR, Politico, and The Atlantic to make their case. It is predicated on the idea that evangelicals in the 1980s were angry about desegregation and only picked up the issue of abortion in order to gain more votes and galvanize support for their agenda. To show the lack of relevance of this argument, one must only look at the modern data. The CDC reports that in the United States, black women had the highest ratio of abortions out of any racial group with 335 abortions per 1,000 live births as opposed to white women with 110 per 1,000 live births. Black women get abortions at more than 3 times the rate of white women. If an individual or group were racist, why would they seek a policy that aims to disproportionately save the lives of black babies? If this was truly the intention, those supposed racists would be in favor of abortion since fewer black babies would be born, leading to a demographic shift, with the final result being fewer black individuals eventually turning 18 and using their right to vote. In modern times, the pro-life movement seeks to save people of all backgrounds, debunking these all too prevalent accusations of racism, stemming from the arbritary claim of a racist past rather than any claims about the present.
“Pro-lifers are only pro-life until it is out of the womb.” This argument is usually coupled with the accusation that those who are pro-life are really only “pro-birth”, seeing that those who are pro-life are also generally conservative and reject the concept of large government welfare programs. This idea infers that in order to not simply be pro-birth, one has to support large government assistance and in turn support the use of a greater tax burden to accomplish that. The reason why this is false is because there is more than one way to assist people in need. Those on the right of the political spectrum find the best way is not to fund bloated and bureaucratic government agencies that mismanage funds, but rather to give their money to religious groups and private charities. They find religious groups like their church more appealing as a destination for their money because they generally know to whom they are giving the money and can hold them accountable, with the faith that the money will go to a good cause due to a common set of values. Private charities are similar in that they can be held to greater accountability than a bureaucratic agency. If a charity acts in a manner that does not reflect what individuals believe the charity should be doing, those individuals can choose not to give them money. That cannot be said about the government, which is held accountable to government officials who are laden with other responsibilities as well as limited by lengthy procedure. To respond to the claim, many pro-lifers find that private means are better than public means in assisting those out of the womb. The difference is that conservatives want to use their own money to support causes of import, while those on the left want to take others' money and allocate it as they see fit.
“Pro-lifers only want to control women’s bodies.” This claim seeks to invalidate any argument as it simplifies the situation into pro-lifers arguing in bad faith. Anything that a pro-lifer says can be discarded because they do not believe what they are saying, or have ulterior motives. Rather than addressing the ideas put forth, this argument simply assumes the opposition is evil and not worthy of debate. To come to this conclusion, one has to assume that pro-lifers do not actually believe that unborn babies are alive, and therefore rather than protect life, wish to control others. Contrary to this, pro-lifers do genuinely believe in what they say, and are only seeking to protect innocent human life. This claim is lazy at best and conspiratorial at worst, implying that there are vast swaths of the population bent on controlling women by all agreeing to lie about the same thing. I would never assume that a large group of people that I disagree with politically were being disingenuous despite them having legitimate arguments that suggest otherwise, and neither should anyone else because it does not lead to productive conversation and will never convince anyone who is governed by reason. It only seeks to breed division.
Finally “it is none of your business” or “if you are against abortion don’t have one.” To believe someone is being murdered next door is none of my business? The vast majority of those on the left as well as many on the right believe George Floyd was murdered, but is that any of your business? Are white straight cisgender men not allowed to march for Black Lives Matter because they are not affected by alleged systematic abuse and not a part of their intersectionality umbrella? No, of course not. People support causes because they believe it is the right thing to do. Martin Luther King Jr., a man widely revered and quoted in America by both left and right, famously said, “Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.” Abortion is an injustice, just like those on the left assert that systematic racism — which they believe to be enshrined in most, if not all, institutions — is an injustice, and it is every person’s imperative to fight for justice, even if one thinks it does not affect them. Abortion is murder, and I and many others are not going to sit by and let it happen.
This article, of course, does not get the opportunity to address the real substantive questions on abortion, such as when does life begin, Catholicism’s view on abortion, or the nuances of cases surrounding rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is in danger. These questions have all been answered before either by previous writers for The Fenwick Review or by other commentators on the topic. Here, I only sought to address the many lazy and coarse opinions spouted on social media that I see take away from the real debate. Additionally, not all those who are for abortion accessibility believe these views, as no group is a monolith. These flashy statements should be retired, so that we as a society can engage in a civil discourse that leads to the truth, rather than shouting matches and political theatre governed by emotions and fanaticism.