Right-wing politics cast historical shadow over abortion and the pro-life movement

In these times of turmoil regarding abortion, taking an Anthropological perspective can illuminate how our species regards the beginning of a human life. Tribal peoples, who give us perspective on our own ancestors, sometimes use natural forms of birth control and will induce an abortion when times are tough. Under stress they might also commit infanticide. And in areas where infant mortality is high, parents frequently hold back on naming ceremonies and other rites that bestow human status onto a baby until they see whether it is likely to survive.

In certain societies, interestingly, a baby will not be perceived as fully human until he/she can begin to use language, which is a fundamental aspect of humanity. Overall, it’s generally not the case that a developing life in utero is considered fully human at the first signs of pregnancy.

In biological sciences there is an expression: Ontogeny (the process of individual development) tends to mimic phylogeny (the evolutionary history of a species). We began as a zygote (fertilized egg) then retraced our biological history. At different times in the womb, we all had insipient gill slits, tails, were covered with hair — some people are even born with such traits. Humans, in other words, go through developmental stages in utero in which they are somewhat similar to a fish, amphibian, reptile, general mammal… Radical pro-life assertions that “little people” appear at the moment of conception are not realistic.

Many misnomers are also held concerning stages of in utero development. Sometimes one will hear that the first heartbeat and brain waves begin at about 5 weeks. This is misleading, given these physiological activities are just the first neural firings of rudimentary tissues that will later develop into a fully formed heart and brain. Scientists believe that the coordinated brain activity required for consciousness doesn’t begin until approximately week 25 of pregnancy and that there is not much cerebral activity until a few weeks before birth.

It is understandable that some citizens (conservatives and liberals alike) feel uncomfortable with terminating a developing life once it has reached the last trimester. But how did the current radical ideology develop in which embryos are deceptively referred to as “babies” or “children” and women along with doctors can be jailed for aborting an embryo?

The answer involves politics, religion, and patriarchy. When the conservative business “new right” merged with the “religious right” in 1979, they chose abortion as one of their rallying cries. Many Republican politicians and Christian leaders who had not shown earlier concern became suddenly all about protecting the unborn.

One can see this lack of sincerity among many today, for it is unlikely that a person who displays callousness about life when it comes to gun deaths, lack of universal health care, and Covid fatalities is suddenly worried about other peoples’ embryos. Many conservative people do admirably feel a genuine concern for life and the unborn, which I share with them; but for the most part, the contemporary abortion issue was cultivated by far-right leadership as a political weapon and recruitment tool.

Moreover, abortion fits in well with the patriarchal leanings of the right wing. Historically one of the main methods for subordinating women has been to control their reproductive functions and behaviors. When women have sexual freedom, contraception, and control over their bodies, their status increases in societies. Numerous people have a problem with this social elevation.

Even when and where abortion isn’t illegal, techniques to suppress access to abortion and general reproductive health care for women have often been employed, such as blocking the entrance to health clinics. Such actions would not be used against men and are tantamount to bullying women.

Moreover, if one is adamantly against abortions, that doesn’t mean making the behavior illegal is the answer. That’s rather like trying to fix a delicate machine with a hammer. Instead, why not focus on improving access to contraception and sex education? And if one is genuinely concerned about “life,” then advocate for universal health care (including prenatal).

It’s been said that “if men were the ones who got pregnant, abortion would be sacrosanct.” That’s probably true. Unless one is of the sex who gets pregnant, carries a fetus to term, and pushes it out, perhaps one should defer to others. This is a women’s issue. Let them decide what is proper.

This story was originally published December 5, 2022 at 11:26 AM.