This was my main take away after reading Erika Bachiochi’s article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy called “Embodied Equality: Debunking Equal Protection Arguments for Abortion Rights”. We are humans. And this has implications for how we approach abortion and gender equality. You can read the entire paper here. It’s written in an American legal context, but she highlights two human traits that have profound implications for abortion regardless of where you live.

#1: Humans have Physical Bodies

Some argue that abortion restrictions are inherently sexist because they only limit women. Bachiochi’s response is very simple – abortion restrictions are not sexist just because it is those with female bodies who get pregnant. This is biological reality, not a sexist limitation imposed by law. It is only women who gestate and give birth.

But is biology unfair here? Do abortion restrictions place a burden on women that is not placed on men, limiting women’s ability to “define the content of their present and future lives”? Putting aside for the moment the way this denigrates motherhood as a future, this argument points out that, while men can walk away from the procreative act seemingly without consequence, women cannot. Therefore, women need abortion to even the playing field – to achieve gender equality.

But that argument assumes something about equality. To even the playing field it presumes “one sex as the standard for equality: the male sex.” But why are we using the male biology and experience as our ideal? Especially when doing so only perpetuates inequality, rather than addressing the real cause of it.

Bachiochi explains: “The legal availability of abortion has worked to detach men further from the potentialities of female sexuality, offering them the illusion that sex can finally be completely consequence-free. The trouble is that, for women, sex that results in pregnancy is fraught with consequence. Women must act affirmatively – and destructively – if they are to imitate male reproductive autonomy.”

Promoting abortion as the equalizer has not helped women. Rather, it elevates the male biology and discourages exploring solutions that might actually better women’s lives when they are facing unplanned pregnancies. In this context, for women to achieve equality they must undergo an invasive medical procedure and sacrifice their child’s life.

This brings us to the second observation by Bachiochi.

#2: Humans are Relational

A pregnant woman is not in a bubble by herself. There is the child’s father. There are her parents, his parents, siblings, friends, coworkers, and the list goes on. The reality is that we are all a part of a relational community whether we realize it or not.

And when it comes to pregnancy, a child is inextricably physically and relationally linked to her mother.

We have no trouble recognizing this connection after a child is born. We acknowledge that parents have duties, legal duties, to at least provide their children the basic necessities of life and hopefully much more in terms of physical and relational needs. We don’t base this duty on the parent’s consenting to take on that duty, nor are they able to revoke consent on a whim. Rather, we recognize a child’s dependence on their parents as placing special obligations on the stronger party.

This is because humans are relational creatures. At our very core, and most starkly from our earliest moments of existence, we depend on those around us. And others rely on us. How do we treat these relationships? Are they extinguishable based on our choice? Or are they something to respect and value?

This is where Bachiochi gets into relational feminism which posits that we are “fundamentally embedded in relationships of interdependence.” This theory rejects the modern view of humans as radically autonomous individuals and argues that the interdependent relationships we have are not to be scorned, but respected. Quoting one feminist, she says: “We are born into some obligations, and some are born to us.”

Abortion ignores this relational reality. It ignores the fact that whether a mother chose it or not, she is relationally interconnected with her child. Abortion ruptures that connection with fatal consequence to the more dependent party. That is a tragedy. The fact that abortion restrictions act to protect the more dependent party is a good thing for both the child and the woman. Whether or not we always enjoy the relationships around us, we cannot ignore them.

In no way does Bachiochi suggest this is always easy for women. She points out that it “may not lessen the hardship of bearing yet another child, or a first child before one feels prepared.” But the alternative is to ignore that we are physical and relational humans. The pro-life movement is well versed in the cost of ignoring the pre-born child’s humanity. And there is most definitely a cost in ignoring women’s humanity.

Abortion might seem to make women more like men, but at the cost of her humanity. You cannot deny the female biology and the reality of the relational context around and within her without dire consequences.

But opening up to the reality of what it means to be a human – and what it means to be a woman – opens you up to all that this life has to offer. As Bachiochi describes, “In the experience of most women, pregnancy is a serious challenge, but one well worth the sacrifices made because of the profundity of the enterprise.”

We’re in the pro-life movement because we believe in human rights. HUMAN rights. Not hypothetical rights. Not ignore-what-it-means-to-be-human rights. But humans-with-bodies-and-relationships-rights. Human rights – with all the joy, the hardship, and the profound beauty that accompanies being a human.

The article opens with this line: “When young women use abortion services, the adolescent men who avoid becoming teenaged fathers go on to have better educational and financial futures than peers who do become teen fathers.”

With this, it continues, “As we see more abortion restrictions being passed across many states, it’s important to consider the potential broader consequence of these restrictions,” said lead study author Bethany Everett of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.”

It seems young men go further in school and make more money if they don’t have to take responsibility for their  children at a young age. So, for the social good, a young woman should consider killing her baby so the man who fathered it can be more successful.

Tell me again how abortion is about women’s liberation and equality?

On the official website, it says, “International Women’s Day is not country, group or organisation specific. The day belongs to all groups collectively everywhere. So together, let’s all be tenacious in accelerating gender parity. Collectively, let’s all Press for Progress.”

As an organization committed to advancing pre-born human rights, we don’t just advocate for gender parity, but for human parity. As abortion continues without regulation in Canada, we will continue to press for progress: progress that brings Canada in line with every other democratic nation in the world.

What does this progress look like? It looks like legislation prohibiting abortion when you would just prefer the other sex. It looks like legislation recognizing the violence women may face while pregnant and honoring her choice to carry her child by punishing more severely any crime that harms that child. It looks like an International Standards Law protecting pre-born children after 13 weeks as so many of our European counterparts do without question.

As so many areas show progress, from ultrasound technology to prenatal surgery and treatment options, our legislation needs to keep up. There is no denying the humanity of the pre-born child, and progress means allowing that reality to dictate legal protections. Emotion and a desire for autonomy should not drive public policy.

Gender parity is a noble goal, but human parity is its foundation. On International Women’s Day, do not believe the claim that gender parity must include unrestricted access to abortion. Without human parity, we will never achieve true gender parity.

As we approach our 150^th birthday this summer, we shouldn’t be resting on the laurels of a renowned human rights record. Instead, we should be engaged in serious reflection and self-examination. How can we do better?

The number one way in which we can do better is in relation to our most vulnerable. Pre-born babies continue to be discarded by the tens of thousands every year. Politicians are scared of the topic – Liberals because they could lose their jobs if they talk about it, Conservatives because they’re told they may not get the job if they talk too much about it.

In our apparent attempt to maintain an international reputation as tolerant, progressive, and accommodating, we have ended up with special interest rights trumping human rights. “Reproductive rights” have somehow trumped the right to life, and suggesting that human rights should trump women’s rights is not going to win me any popularity contests.

It is only a matter of time, however, before everyone has to admit that the emperor has no clothes. Science has never been clearer regarding the intricate humanity of life in the womb. The pre-born child is unequivocally a separate, living human being. It is dependent on its mother, yes, as is a newborn or toddler. Also like a newborn or toddler, the pre-born child has its own DNA, and can even be operated on separately from the mother.

In the blur of plummeting birth rates and newfound sexual freedom that came with widely available birth control, we as women somehow came to believe that we were the masters of conception. Not one of us would ever again have a child against her will; we would decide whether life lived or died within us. This belief led us to fight tooth and nail against any suggestion that pregnancy might just be something we couldn’t always control, and we’ve managed to convince a lot of women to cling to that control regardless of the consequences. By doing so, we’ve also allowed men to step back from responsibility, to expect control, and to turn a blind eye to consequences.

The rights to life, liberty and security of the person were matters of life and death to our forefathers. They founded our nation on these values because these values mean something. We cannot be casual about these terms, or the associated implication that human rights trump individual rights. The right to life, the primary human right, is violated every moment that abortion remains legal in Canada. We need to stand up and say this is not about bodily autonomy or fighting patriarchy, this is about life. So women, men and children from all ages and stages of life, all backgrounds, all with their own stories, beliefs, and reasons for being there, will march. We march for, and stand for, the right to life for all members of the human family.

In fact, motherhood should be viewed for what it is: a unique and powerful opportunity for women to shape the next generation, teaching both boys and girls that equality is not defined by sameness, but by value and respect.

Girls face immense barriers to equality around the world, despite repeated attempts and international initiatives to balance these inequities. The International Day of the Girl should focus on gender-based violence and injustice, on access to excellent medical care, quality education, and the ending of child marriage. To shift the focus to pregnancy and abortion access does nothing to enhance girls’ prospects, but only reinforces the message that women earn equality by becoming more like men.

Read the full article at MercatorNet.

We have to consider the possibility that perhaps women are not always making choices that they really want to make, as men absolve themselves of their responsibility in decision- making. A choice is no choice if there are not equal (supported) alternatives.

Canada’s unfettered access to abortion allows men to live with this attitude; an attitude that shows complete lack of regard for the woman they have impregnated and a callousness that is repulsive.

Ms. Taylor goes on to dispel the myth that abortion laws are an assault on women’s rights. She says,

So before commentators all too easily accept claims that restricting abortion is a war on women, they should stop to consider whether abortion is really a choice women want to always have to take responsibility for on their own.

Certainly something to consider as we advocate for protections for pre-born children.

The following letter was written to the editor of Canadian Living magazine after an article celebrating abortion in Canada. This letter was sent 4 times, twice to the editor herself (February 27th and March 20th), and then to another contact (on April 10th and April 30th) I was given after phoning the magazine to cancel my subscription and inquire why I had received no reply. In my April 30th e-mail I included that I would post this letter publicly if I did not receive a reply within two weeks, which led to a prompt reply from the editor the following day.

Her reply indicated that they were “passionate about sharing stories of women with a variety of opinions (pro-choice and pro-life), experiences and causes.” I followed up by asking when an article of the pro-life persuasion would be published. I requested a reply by May 9th, and I have yet to receive one, therefore I am making this letter public, to increase the pressure on Canadian Living to follow through with publishing a piece that reflects pro-life choices and experiences of Canadian women.

—

Dear Jennifer Reynolds,

I was shocked to see the infographic in your “State of the Sisterhood” piece of the March edition pertaining to reproductive rights. The stats you give on maternal mortality rate are encouraging for those of us who live in developed countries, and yet reveal the hard truth that women in other parts of the world still face a huge risk when they become mothers. I find the contrast with your information on Abortion to be both misleading and lacking in equality of human rights. How can you expect me to be glad that fewer women are dying during childbirth in Canada (1 in 5200 over their lifetime), and at the same time be glad that we are killing pre-born humans at a rate of one in four pregnancies. I am glad that our medical advances are increasing women’s survival rates, yet I am deeply saddened that advances in the same field are being used for genocide of the tiniest humans (some who could otherwise grow up to be mothers themselves one day).

Your piece paints a rosy picture of abortion in Canada, implying that we are a great place to live because we’re “advanced” (both medically and socially) enough to give women access to abortion. Your piece also suggests wagging a finger at countries where abortion is illegal, regardless of circumstance. There are many negative consequences of abortion, which are too often swept under the rug in public discussion, including your magazine. Women aren’t made aware of the many physical and psychological effects abortion can produce, only to be discovered once they are experiencing them. I won’t elaborate on this point, but encourage you to visit http://www.deveber.org/complications to read more on the other negative health outcomes after abortion.

Your piece is also extremely misleading, both in the categories you created, and the way you represent your figures. By grouping together Canada and 55 other countries where there are “Few or no restrictions (gestational limits may apply)” etc. You have glossed over the fact that only three countries have NO limits whatsoever, and the other 53 countries have some limits (click here for a link to their infographic). You do not explain what those gestational limits may be, and in many Western nations, abortion is illegal after the first trimester (including: Austria, France, Germany, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Netherlands and Czech Republic). Some of these countries also include waiting periods (Netherlands, Germany), approval by a committee (Czech Republic, Denmark, UK) or mandatory counselling to try and convince the woman to continue her pregnancy (Germany).

The sad truth is that the other two countries with NO limits are North Korea and China. I hardly think anyone would say that equality with North Korea is to be desired, as they are grave violators of human rights. China as the third country with no abortion laws brings me to my argument that your figures are misleading. Instead of arranging your pie chart by number of countries with certain restrictions, you have weighted it towards percentage of world population. As China is in the same awful boat as us, and they have the largest population of any one country, this makes it seem like access to abortion is the most popular choice, when in fact more governments around this world have decided against allowing their tiniest citizens to be murdered.

In 1988 when the Supreme Court ruled on R. v. Morgentaler, they expected Canada to rewrite the laws, they even indicated it in their decision. By having zero laws it’s actually contrary to human rights. Other countries have gestational limits BECAUSE it’s obvious, through science, that a preborn child is actually a human (and not a clump of cells). If other countries choose to have limits it’s actually empowering, because it is recognizing human rights for all people – in the womb and out. It’s actually better that there are gestational limits and the fact that Canada has none is showing that it doesn’t value human rights as much as it says it does.

Are women’s right important? Of course they are. But when we decide that one person’s rights are more important than another person’s rights, we don’t have universal human rights. And when life is devalued at its most innocent stage, it becomes a slippery slope to devaluing human rights whenever anyone else’s existence is an inconvenience for us. I am glad to live in Canada for many reasons. This is not one of them. I am ashamed that my country allows this genocide to continue, and I am appalled that Canadian Living flaunts this “right” as if we should be proud. I request that a piece be published in the soonest possible edition of Canadian Living presenting the other side of such a sensitive issue. I am aware that this is a very charged, emotional and political issue, but you opened the can of worms yourself, and this cannot be ignored now. Should you feel that this issue is bigger than you can handle, I can recommend someone with more knowledge and literary eloquence than myself who works to support pre-born humans in Canada. I’m sure she would love to contribute to your magazine. Her name is Niki Devereaux and she can be reached at niki@test.weneedalaw.ca.

Thank you for taking this issue seriously. I otherwise enjoy reading your magazine, but am reconsidering my subscription pending your response,

Alison Hyndman

For more information and the source of my stats, please see weneedalaw.ca