Dude, calm down.

Personally, I think it’s interesting the idea that “human life is sacred” argument. People who make that claim tend to not exactly apply it consistently.

I consider it a consistent moral position only if the person claiming to be “pro-life” also

• Is against the death penalty
• Is against euthanasia/assisted suicide
• Is anti-war

Because if “life is sacred” then that means ALL human life right? Even the lives of people who no longer want to live, and the lives of pedophiles, murderers, soldiers etc?

Now you may claim that fetuses are different because they are “innocent” — OK. What about the fact that a significant proportion of people executed by the death penalty are exonerated after death? The death penalty kills innocent people too. So does war, in terms of civilian casualties. Let alone people who are choosing to kill themselves humanely due to an incurable progressive, painful illness.

Maybe you truly are “all human life is sacred” and don’t have any inconsistent beliefs in regards to that. I respect that consistency if that’s the case.

However I would ask — what about the life of a pregnant woman who will die unless she has an abortion? What about the life of a pregnant woman with cancer, whose only chance for survival is to get chemotherapy, but to do so would kill the fetus? Don’t those lives matter? In tragic situations where you have to trade off one life for another, which one do you choose?

A “pro-life” position is not a simple one and it’s all but impossible to apply to all circumstances.

Maybe you’re of the opinion that there’s a difference in morality between “letting a life die” and “actively killing something” which is kind of like the trolley problem. So even if aborting a fetus would save a person’s life, it would still be morally wrong, according to this belief.

Another thought experiment — is it wrong to switch off the life support of a brain-dead but physically alive body? For example, is it wrong to turn off the life support of a body where there is absolutely no brain activity or chance of recovery, but the rest of the body is “alive”? The blood circulates (with assistance), the lungs deliver oxygen to the cells (with assistance) and thus the body remains “alive”.

Most people recognise that despite the body’s “life” — consciousness is a fundamental part of what we consider being “alive” and thus what we consider to be “the sanctity of life”. Thus for most people, it is not wrong to turn off life support for a brain dead body, especially when doing so frees up a life support machine for someone whose brain and body WILL recover with assistance.

This thought experiment illustrates the difference between something without consciousness vs something with consciousness. Now consider the fetus -the consciousness of a fetus develops over time from the complete unawareness of a clump of cells no bigger than a bacteria, to the unconsciousness of a small, sleeping animal, to the almost-dreams of a fully formed unborn baby.

For people who think human life is more “sacred” than that of an animal — what is it that makes it so? Perhaps you believe in the existence of a “soul”. If so — given the millions of years of evolution during which we evolved from single celled bacteria, to sea creatures, to land animals, to primates, hominids and now humans — evolution that has reams of scientific evidence to support it — at what point during this evolution did a “soul” develop?

The more scientific answer for why humans are more important than animals, is that we are “more intelligent and thus more conscious” than other animals. That may be true in most cases — but it’s been shown by science that pigs have the equivalent intelligence to a five year old child. Dogs have the intelligence of a three-year old child. And chimpanzees and gorillas are more intelligent than intellectually disabled humans. All of which are more intelligent — more “conscious” if you will, than an undeveloped fetus.

I am not arguing that children, babies or the intellectually disabled should be treated badly because some animals are more intelligent or “conscious” than them. I am a vegetarian who is transitioning to veganism because my ethical philosophy is that of “trying to do least harm” and that because animals can be conscious and can suffer, we should therefore avoid hurting them if possible. Does my opinion mean I believe all animals’ lives are equal? No. I don’t feel guilty about swatting a mosquito for example. That’s because I think life’s importance is on a spectrum, and that the more conscious a life is, the more it is able to feel pain, the more important it is to safeguard.

Does that mean that I think that we should treat children or the intellectually disabled as “lesser” than more intelligent or developed adults? No. As a human society we do have to draw some boundaries by which we treat all beings with an equal standard of protection. At the moment the distinction we draw as a society is personhood not “humanity”. This means that whether it’s a baby, a child, a mentally disabled person, someone with Alzheimer’s disease, or a healthy intelligent adult, we affirm their right to life. Perhaps one day we will extend personhood to non-humans — consider if AI ever reaches the singularity and becomes sentient, or if we make contact with advanced non-human aliens.

And so the issue of abortion boils down to personhood. At what point does a fetus become a person? I don’t think it should be considered one when it is a clump of cells, with no brain, no heart or any consciousness higher than that of an amoeba. Because the development of consciousness in a fetus, just like the evolution of consciousness from cell to animal to human, is progressive. There’s no one point at which you can say a switch was flipped from “not conscious” to “conscious”.

Therefore I believe there should be another consideration — the issue of bodily autonomy. In our society, all people are considered to have bodily autonomy. That means that even if doing so would save another person’s life, you can’t force someone to say, donate a kidney. Even if doing so wouldn’t kill them, and would save someone else, you can’t make someone donate an organ to save another person’s life, without their consent.

In fact, our society extends that to the rights of dead bodies who if they didn’t consent to organ donation, are granted bodily autonomy, even if donating the organs of a dead body would save one or more lives. (I personally think this goes too far, because I subscribe to the consciousness model of personhood — once you’re dead, you’re not actually a “person” anymore, you’re a dead body, and your rights are superseded by the rights of people, in my opinion).

We can all agree that women are people, right? Therefore, it’s wrong to force a woman to donate a kidney to someone, even if doing so would save another person’s life, even a child’s life, even a baby’s life — it’s still wrong to force the woman to donate that kidney if she doesn’t want to.

Another hypothetical — let’s say for some reason there was an old person who needed a kidney, but they would die eventually and the organ could be returned to the donor. A temporary organ donation if you would. Should you force a person to donate their kidney to that old person? Even if it was temporary?

Why not? Because the person receiving the donation could die and it would be a waste? That’s true of all human life, and is especially true for fetuses. Let alone fetuses with genetic abnormalities “incompatible with life” (which make up almost all “late term abortions”). Perhaps it’s wrong because there’s no guarantee that the organ could be returned in its original state, maybe the donor would get an infection or die, or their returned kidney wouldn’t work properly once it was reimplanted? That’s true of pregnancy, as women can still die due to conditions like preeclampsia, and their uterus and other reproductive organs can be permanently damaged by pregnancy and birth.

Perhaps it’s wrong because it denies someone their bodily autonomy. Even a “temporary” organ donation, done without consent, is an affront to the principle of bodily autonomy which our society recognises.

A uterus is an organ. Pregnancy is temporary organ donation. If a woman doesn’t want to donate her uterus to a fetus , she can withdraw her consent. It’s sad, but it’s in my opinion, ethical.

So at what point should we decide a fetus is a “person”? When it can survive outside the uterus on its own. That means that even if the woman no longer wants to be pregnant, the fetus can be born alive but prematurely. It also means that late term abortion is ethical in the cases where the fetus couldn’t survive after birth, or would be born “brain dead” or without consciousness. Which is the only reason a late term abortion is carried out.

This is why I am pro-choice. I’ve thought a lot about it. I think my views are ethical and consistent.

I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts.