There is so much wrong with the framing of 'pro-life', as it has been politically appropriated to advance a religiously-motivated belief with no basis in science or reality, that I don't even know where to begin.

As such, I will be referring to Pro-Life as Anti-Choice throughout this article.

I, too, am pro-life... pro-life! Not pro the potential of life or pro possible future life.

Because taking the 'anti-choice' stance to its natural conclusion would mean that every waking moment that we aren't having sexual intercourse is essentially a 'lost opportunity' and, therefore, to not engage in the act of perpetual impregnation should be considered a moral catastrophe.

Life, in and of itself, has no inherent value. We rationally assign value to life under certain circumstances.

The status quo, unfortunately, still holds that only human life matters.

And the 'anti-choice' brigade would have us believe that such life matters from conception.

So, then, can we say that their arbitrary moral line is drawn at conception?

I think not, as many also believe that masturbation is wrong, recreational intercourse is wrong, homosexual intercourse is wrong, contraception is wrong and any other sexual activity sans the intention of procreation is wrong.

The main justification for them holding these beliefs is that the goal of any one of the aforementioned sexual activities isn't pregnancy... but oh boy, if it does result in a pregnancy, you can bet your bottom dollar that the 'anti-choice' clowns will glom onto your existence like shit sticks to a shoe.

But why is sexual reproduction so important, I wonder? 🤔

Okay, this next bit is my unadulterated opinion (so keep that in mind), but it makes perfect sense.

the 'anti-choice' movement is primarily fuelled by religious dogma and is, therefore, all about control.

The god-concept is like a virus that uses religion as a conduit to infect the masses as effectively as possible.

In order to survive and thrive, god and religion need PEOPLE and, the more people it has in its arsenal, the more equipped it will be to proliferate throughout the generations in an effort to stand the test of time.

The goal of any religion (specifically Christianity and Islam right now) is to convert the most people and 'win' this sick and twisted game of world domination by defeating all other ideologies.

The one true religion (and, hence, the one true god) is the one with the most players, right? Argumentum Ad Populum! The one which is able to defeat all others must be true, because all false gods and religions obviously surrendered to our religion and the one true supreme being!

This is like saying that the only real virus is the the one that spreads the quickest and causes the most harm.

It is this sort of logic, in my opinion, that makes religion so damaging and destructive.

It's 'truth claims' are almost entirely built on this notion of power, control and dominance. This means that indoctrination and fear need to be embedded into young minds as early as possible, so as to secure unwavering commitment and create an army of mindless zombies hell-bent on infecting all those around them with the god-virus while, at the same time, trying to sell such as some sort of panacea.

God and religion fall apart in the presence of reason, rationality and a factual understanding of the nature of reality. This is why faith is so important in religion, why we need to 'submit unquestioningly' and why we need to reject science and reason.

Science, especially, is limited by its refusal to recognise the 'undeniable truth' of the supernatural, which, according to ancient text, can only be explained through something, which is itself, unexplainable, unfalsifiable and extraordinary.

You see, approaching life through the lens of reason, rationality and scepticism is 'too short-sighted'. It's also not very open minded of us to deny god and reject the inerrant word of our primitive ancestors who received god's divine wisdom, which wisdom is now revealed to us through copies of copies of translations of copies of unreliable text (many of which contradict each other, contradict reality and call for permanent suspension of disbelief). And, even though we now have better explanations for reality than we did thousands of years ago (supported with a wealth of evidence) and, even though biblical claims have been significantly discredited, we should still believe in a very specific god and follow whatever scripture supports it.

When a theist requests that we 'be more open-minded', what they really want is for us to open up our minds so unreasonably wide that our brains fall out.

Bringing this back to the abortion issue, religion depends on more children being born into families which follow that specific religion, as this will exponentially increase its prospects of becoming the dominant religion and bring it one step closer to its god being accepted by society as the one 'TRUE' deity.

This is also why:

1. The 'anti-choice' movement doesn't really give a fuck about what happens to children after they are born (save for coercing the mother to not only have and keep the unwanted offspring - which is now entirely her responsibility - but also that she raise it in accordance with the precepts of the religion responsible for negating her freedom of choice in the very first place); and
2. If the mother does, god-forbid, decide not to keep the child, they will do whatever is in their power to ensure that said child is placed in a system which is most likely to indoctrinate him/her into the religion responsible for bringing them into an already overpopulated world.

Anti-choice spits in the face of reason, because all it wants is control and the ability to manipulate through fear, regardless of who gets hurt in the process.

Why I Am Pro-Choice (And Why You Should Be Too!)

Regardless of the motives of those who are anti-choice, I now wish to provide a compelling case for the pro-choice position.

According to the science on sentience, prior to 30 weeks gestational age, electrical activity in the part of the brain that determines consciousness (i.e., whether a living entity is capable of being aware of and responsive to one's environment; the ability to experience a subjective reality) is extremely limited and we can confidently conclude that a foetus of less than 30 weeks' gestational age is NOT sentient.

Given that science and medicine have concluded that a foetus of 30 weeks' gestational age or younger is not sentient, I believe that the law governing abortion in South Africa is a rational and reasonable approach to the issue and can be summarised as follows:

1. Those who are less than 13 weeks' pregnant can request and receive an abortion without enquiry;
2. Those between 13 and 20 weeks' pregnant need to provide a justification for the abortion:
1. The pregnant woman's physical or mental health is in jeopardy;
2. The pregnant woman's social or economic situation will be adversely affected by the birth;
3. The baby will be born with severe mental or physical abnormalities;
4. The pregnancy is the result of incest or rape.
3. Those more than 20 weeks' pregnant can only get an abortion if the mother's life is in jeopardy or the baby will most likely be born with serious physical or mental defects.

It is argued that termination of pregnancy at any stage of development is immoral, because we are killing another human being; unfairly voiding another's god-given right to life.

However, conceding for a moment that a foetus has any rights, this argument still fails due to either the principle of Competing Rights or the principle of Special Rights.

The Principles of Competing Rights & Special Rights

In respect of competing rights, where two rights are in conflict with one another, we need to give priority to the objectively more important rights (the rights which, if upheld, would lead to the most utility).

Anti-choicers will claim that the unborn child's right to life is more important than the mother's right to choose to terminate the pregnancy.

Firstly, I refer you back to the discussion on sentience above and, secondly, this 'right to life' claim fails to recognise the toll child-birth takes on a woman's body, which can sometime be fatal.

Approximately nine months of having something grow inside you, feed off your body and set in motion a whole chain of repercussions way beyond the pregnancy itself (not least of which being the potential irreparable physical damage it can cause, economic implications and trauma).

Pregnancy is NOT a decision one should take lightly, let alone one to be taken on behalf of another who, but for said third-party's intervention, would have decided otherwise.

Having a child should be intentional, planned and (probably most of all) wanted.

Even if the foetus did have a competing right, it would still not be a simple question of 'life versus choice'. Even if it were about competing rights, we would still have to be pro-choice due to the fact that a foetus is not a sentient being, while the mother is a fully conscious sentient adult person. Her right to bodily autonomy supersedes the foetuses right to sustain itself by using the body of its host (the pregnant woman).

However, the fact of the matter is that what we are dealing with here is actually a case of giving special rights to an unborn child (regardless of sentience). Special because, in which other scenario would we allow someone to use the body of another against their will to keep the former alive, especially if to the detriment of the latter?

We would be justified in unplugging ourselves from another person - who has hooked themselves to us without our consent in order to benefit from our body in some way - even if doing so would lead to their death.

Remember, you are not depriving the other person of their right to life (even if your actions could be considered the proximate cause of their death), but rather enforcing your own right to bodily integrity; the right not to be forced to permit others to use your body against your will.

I also highly recommend you read Judith Jarvis Thompson's essay in Defence of Abortion, which explains the above more comprehensively.

Therefore, it can be said that the 'anti-choice' argument fails no matter which way you slice it, since it amounts to giving special rights to an unborn non-sentient foetus by allowing it to exploit the body and resources of a fully-formed sentient being against her will.

By terminating an unviable pregnancy, we are not killing someone. We are merely refusing to let a clump of cells hijack a living person without their consent, for almost a year, simply because it 'has the potential to become a living sentient person'.

Pro-Life is actually Anti-Choice, and wanting to take away a woman's bodily autonomy in favour of potential life does not for a credible argument make.

The mother's rights (especially that of bodily autonomy and life) MUST ALWAYS supersede that of the foetus!

That being said, I think the 13-to-20 week window, as discussed above, is a reasonable timeframe within which to terminate an unviable pregnancy. Should the mother allow the pregnancy to proceed into more advanced stages, leave the foetus to develop sentience, clearly be shown to have wilfully accommodated such life and/or that tacit consent can reasonably be inferred from her actions, I believe the less moral justification she will have for requesting an abortion.

I personally think that these late-term abortion requests ought to be denied unless the mother's life is in jeopardy or the baby will most likely be born with serious physical or mental deformity.

But if it’s been like 10 weeks into the pregnancy, then please, fuck right off and let women decide for themselves whether or not they want their body used as an incubation chamber for the better part of a year!

Additional Arguments, Considerations & Conversations:

Stephen Kershner discusses whether a foetus has a right to its mother’s womb in this episode of Brain in a Vat. [Genre: Philosophy]

Additional Reading:

1. You Don’t Need God to Be Good - for morality without religion
2. Under the Radar - for what I believe & why
3. Abortions in South Africa - for the legal approach to abortions in RSA
4. When is the Capacity for Sentience Acquired During Human Foetal Development? - for science & sentience
5. Soytheist, ‘Abortion Kills, And Thats Okay’ - YouTube Video
6. Atheist Experience, ‘Moral Justification of Abortion & Bodily Autonomy’ - YouTube Video
7. Abortion - Wikipedia - What is abortion?
8. A Defence of Abortion - Wikipedia - The Violinist Analogy
9. Judith Jarvis Thompson: A Defence of Abortion (Essay) - A defence of abortion (Judith Jarvis Thompson)
10. Leslie Cannold (2002) Understanding and Responding to Anti-choice Women-centred Strategies, Reproductive Health Matters, 10:19, 171-179, DOI: 10.1016/ S0968-8080(02)00011-3
11. The Messiness of Reproduction & the Dishonesty of Anti-Abortion Propaganda - The New Yorker