Political discourse largely consists of sophistry, posturing, and hyperpartisan rhetoric, but you occasionally find people interested in persuading others of their position. Frequently, it’s challenging to make progress on issues even if you try to be convincing because people have different moral foundations which inform their political views (Haidt, 2012). The ethics and legality of abortion are especially difficult messes of ethical intuitions (Huemer, 2019). It’s no wonder that the issue divides the nation; 61% of Americans believe it should be legal in all/most cases, and 37% think it should be illegal in all/most cases (Pew Research, 2022). I don’t have a solution to this challenging ethical problem for you. However, I do want to show it’s possible to persuade men, Christians, and Republicans to be pro-choice, and then I want to provide a way of having more effective and honest conversations about the topic.
Although tempting, it is not accurate to frame the debate as a battle of the sexes despite there being some differences regarding opposition to abortion. In 2022, 63% of women believe that abortion should be “legal in all/most cases,” and 35% think it should be “illegal in all/most cases,” which is not incredibly different from the male breakdown of 58% legal and 41% illegal (Pew Research, 2022). According to a Gallup poll, 38% of women and 30% of men believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances; 48% of women and 53% of men think it should be legal only under certain circumstances; 12% of women and 14% of men believe it should be illegal in all circumstances (Gallup, 2022). The self-identification of pro-life and pro-choice shows the greatest disparity, with 61% of women and 48% of men identifying as pro-choice and 33% of women and 47% of men identifying as pro-life; however, as recently as 2019, the proportion of women that was pro-life (51%) was higher than the proportion of men (46%), and 2022 appears to be an unusually divided year (Gallup, 2022).
It’s also not hopeless to try to persuade Christians. While it would be accurate to say that religion is a major influence on people’s opinions, it may be to a lesser extent than one would imagine. Most noticeably, people with no religious affiliation are in favor of legalization (84%), and white evangelical protestants are opposed (74%) (Pew Research, 2022). There appears to be a good diversity of opinion within religious groups. This indicates persuading a religious person to oppose abortion without relinquishing their religious beliefs is a possibility, even among Catholics whose Catechism has harsh words for abortion: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception” (CCC 2270); “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion” (CCC 2271); “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (CCC 2273). Despite this condemnation, the majority still support legal abortion.
It’s also not hopeless to try to persuade Republicans. Among those that are Republican or lean Republican, 38% believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 60% think it should be illegal in all or most cases, while those numbers are 80% and 18%, respectively, for Democrats (Pew Research, 2022). While the remaining advocates may be particularly stubborn, many Republicans support the idea of legal abortion. It’s reasonable to suspect that you could persuade some Republicans that abortion should be legal since many already approve of it. However, I believe a great deal of rhetoric around abortion is currently very unpersuasive.
People opposed to abortion have various nuanced views on the topic, but I will be discussing the prototypical pro-life advocate. Most pro-life advocates believe that a fetus is a person with moral worth and that killing a fetus is either akin to murder or actual murder. They often believe that life begins at fertilization and that it is morally unacceptable to terminate the pregnancy regardless of economic or social circumstances. Pro-life advocates often use the term “baby” instead of the word “fetus.” They will also use the expression “kill the baby” instead of “terminate the pregnancy.” This is reflective of their perspective on the issue.
A particularly unfair categorization of pro-lifers that I have heard is that they are merely motivated by a desire for control. While some pro-lifers just want to control women’s bodies, the intention is almost always to prevent what they view as murder. One could describe advocating for mandatory vaccination as “just wanting to control people’s bodies,” but that’s not an accurate representation of the views of almost everyone advocating for forced vaccinations. Virtually everyone supports some control over bodily autonomy. “My body, my choice” doesn’t hold up as a general principle for most pro-choicers. Aside from radical libertarians, how many pro-choice advocates seriously advocate for legalizing prostitution, legalizing recreational drug use, removing medical licensing, legalizing organ sales, and prohibiting infant circumcision? Not many.
Many radical libertarians advocate legalizing heroin and prostitution but firmly oppose abortion. They respect bodily autonomy but also believe that a fetus has a right to bodily autonomy, and killing the fetus is a violation worse than having to bear a child for around nine months. In this view, the fetus does not deserve to be killed, and being in the womb is often not regarded as trespassing because the fetus did not consent to be placed there. This viewpoint is illustrative of the fact that individuals who respect bodily autonomy generally could still regard a fetus as worth protecting.
A good reflection of the inability of some pro-choicers to understand the pro-life position is demonstrated when they begin making arguments such as a woman potentially being poor serves as justification for abortion. You have to remember that pro-life advocates regard fetuses as people. Questions like “What if the mother can’t afford the baby?” sound like “poverty justifies killing a fetus,” but pro-lifers think fetuses are nearly or totally morally equivalent babies. This sounds like “poverty justifies killing a baby.” When some pro-life advocates hear arguments like this, they will likely run it through the baby test: Would this make it okay to kill a baby? Almost always, the answer is going to be no.
You might argue that abortion is morally distinct from killing because the fetus would die without the mother’s support if it’s not viable. While that is true, most people don’t think neglecting your offspring until they die is acceptable. Also, abortion is an intentional action, which most people regard as morally distinct from merely letting a bad thing happen even if it results in the same outcome. It would be odd to say, “my infant is going to starve to death anyway, so intentionally killing it is morally acceptable.”
I am unsure if someone else has coined a term for these arguments that would include living babies, but I will call them infanticide-encompassing arguments. Almost nobody thinks it’s okay to kill a baby. If your argument could be used to justify infanticide, then it will not be very persuasive to a pro-life advocate. People make these arguments all the time, though.
What if the fetus is going to be physically disabled? Is it morally permissible to kill an infant if it is physically disabled?
What if the mother is going to be in poverty? Is it morally permissible to kill an infant if the mother is poor?
What if the fetus is mentally disabled? Is it morally permissible to kill an infant if it is mentally disabled?
What if the fetus is the product of rape? Is it morally permissible to kill an infant if it is the product of rape?
What if society is not a good place to live? Is it morally permissible to kill an infant if society is not a good place to live?
A fetus is a clump of cells. Is an infant not a clump of cells?
Ultimately, I believe you will not be persuasive unless you convince pro-lifers to abandon the idea of fetal personhood or argue persuasively that rights to bodily autonomy supersedes human life. If a fetus is morally equivalent to an infant, then it is hard to argue that the mother is poor or the fetus is physically disabled. That doesn’t seem enough to warrant killing an infant, nor does it seem enough if these factors are combined. My advice would be to avoid these arguments by asking yourself whether your argument would justify killing an infant before providing it. If it would, then it is likely not persuasive. As to how to convince people without infanticide-encompassing arguments, that’s tricky. Abortion may truly be one of the most challenging ethical dilemmas.
I think the issue of how rights interact is just too weedy for pro-choice advocates to make much progress there. Of the two options, I think they must simply bite the bullet and argue against fetal personhood, although I suspect at most pro-lifers will only be convinced that fetuses are not persons early in the pregnancy, if that.
I largely agree with what you've said here, but I think your example 6 (a fetus is a clump of cells) misses the point pro-choice advocates are making. They would disagree that an infant is just a clump of cells. If pressed, I think they'd admit that late in the pregnancy a fetus isn't a clump of cells either, but I take it they mean that at the point in the pregnancy where the fetus fits in a petri dish, give or take a few weeks, it is substantively just a clump of cells.
Generally speaking, I see most political messaging as being motivating to one's own side, and rarely motivating to the "other side". This is certainly the case with abortion.