A couple of days ago, someone leaked a draft from the Supreme Court of the United States suggesting that they were going to overturn Roe v. Wade. Pro-lifers online naturally felt the need to do a victory lap. Pro-choice women expressed shock and horror, worrying about their safety and their lives. No pro-lifers thought “hmm, it seems that my political will makes people afraid, perhaps I should re-evaluate whether I’m on the right side of this issue.” Not even for a picosecond.
So here I am wondering: what even are pro-lifers thinking? How does one go about being pro-life? How can a person be so committed to an ideology with no factual basis and only causes misery to the poor and marginalized? Then I remembered I used to think that way. I don’t have to wonder. I know!
How Does Any Belief Come to Be?
Most of us tend to think we examine evidence, and upon processing it, come to a conclusion. If I walked outside and saw the color of the sky, I would determine that the sky is blue. Silly example, I know. The point is to demonstrate the order of events. We come at the evidence with a clean slate, believing only the natural conclusion from what we see.
But of course this isn’t true. If that were how we came to believe things, then everyone should have the same beliefs about everything all the time. Variance in belief, according to this model, can only come about due to a defect in a person’s ability to process information. Either they have a physical defect that prevents them from seeing or hearing things correctly, or they are just too stupid to process the information accurately. No, I have the order of events backwards here.
First, we believe something without evidence. Then we examine the evidence and adjust our assumption. In my blue sky example, I would start out thinking something about the sky. Perhaps I already think it’s blue because I was told, or saw photos, or read books. But I also could think it’s green, or purple, or polka-dotted. Maybe my thoughts of the sky are vague and mysterious, or I do not even know for sure there is a sky. Whatever the case, I already have a version in my head. Either it is a concrete positive assertion, or an empty space for conjecture. At some point I will then see the sky. My eyes will tell me it is blue. Now I have to adjust my belief based on the evidence.
At first blush it seems to be not that different from the first model. In both cases the existence of evidence has caused me to believe the truth of what I see. The only difference is the order of events - which came first, the chicken or the egg? But this slight difference is enough to completely change the nature of belief. In the second example, I come to a piece of evidence with an idea in mind of what it should say. When it comes to the color of the sky, I don’t have a lot of emotional attachment one way or the other. For more personal matters, I do, and that emotion can cause problems.
For instance, I am very attached to the belief that all people are created equal. I believe the evidence backs me up on this. But what if, one day, I find evidence that suggests that some people are created better than others? Even worse, what if I - a white male-bodied person - discover evidence that tells me that white men are created lesser than everyone else? A lot of my identity is wrapped up in the notion that I am equal to people of different races and genders. Such evidence would not only shatter my confidence that what I believe is right, but it says something fundamental about me, something that puts me in a negative light, and something that will change everything going forward. I would have to apologize for my equality stance. I would have to make reparations for it. I would have to fight for entirely different causes, ones that I am emotionally very against.
This example is silly - I do not think that we will ever find evidence to suggest that people are not created equal. I picked it because I’m sure you and I, and anyone who reads this, will agree with me. All of us would be devastated to find out we were wrong. It’s more than just pride. Yes, it would sting to have to admit a mistake of this caliber, especially after going to bat for it for so long. But we would also be devastated to find out that we now have to switch sides, to work for the enemy. And if we personally benefit from the old, now false, belief - if we would lose something in switching to the other side - then everything in us would resist this new evidence. The cycle of believe>witness>adjust would stall. We would reject it and do everything in our power to not only never see that evidence again, but avoid anything that would compel us to even think of it. Our minds are rational enough to know that evidence demands action, and we would be immoral to not pursue that action, so the only thing left in our arsenal is to avoid that which compels us to change, thus soothing our insecurities.
The Origins of the Pro-Life Thought
So let’s talk about the pro-life people.
It’s a fantasy to suggest that pro-life people came to the movement as neutral, compelled only by evidence. We know that’s not how it works. They already believed it before they started. From my experience, the mass majority of them are told to believe it and never even attempt to approach the evidence. In fairness, pro-choice people are the same. The difference is this: whose belief matches the evidence?
The pro-life position hinges on the belief that Life Begins at Conception. The moment the sperm and egg meet, that’s a human baby deserving of life above and beyond the needs of its mother. “Life at Conception” is a necessary condition of the pro-life position. Without it, the whole thing crumbles instantly. If evidence were to come out suggesting otherwise, or even if the supposed evidence for their position were insufficient, then suddenly there is no reason to oppose abortion generally. The entire movement would be defeated.
So you would think pro-lifers were be very, very focused on finding that evidence and showing it to the world. While such evidence would not automatically mean their position is correct, the lack of evidence - or evidence in contrary - would automatically disqualify it. It’s fine that pro-lifers believe in Life at Conception without evidence at first, but any of them who were intent on continuing that belief would really want to make sure their evidence was correct. Not only would it give them the assurance that they are in the right, but it would be a massive advantage in an argument against a pro-choice person.
Yet evidence is, let’s say, rare. Sure, pro-lifers assert that fetuses are living babies, but evidence is nowhere to be found. Believe me (or don’t and look it up yourself) - I’ve been in this movement. I was apart of it for the first twenty or so years of my life. If anyone should be steeped in the evidence supporting their position, it’s me. Yet no one ever provided it. Why? Such evidence would be a godsend, and the lack of that evidence would be a death blow. Surely we would, you know, make sure we were right before being pro-life!
Remember, it’s not a sin that a person would start out just believing what they are told, that Life Begins at Conception. However, the rational thing to do is to be open to new evidence. And if you are putting a lot of political and religious stake in that belief, then you owe it to yourself and others to pursue that evidence. If I don’t pursue evidence in a fringe belief that I don’t care about - i.e. tea is tastier than coffee - no one really cares. But the pro-life belief is not inconsequential. If they are right, millions upon millions of babies are being murdered. If they are wrong, they are directly contributing to the murder, torture, imprisonment, rape, and dissolution of rights for all women and minorities everywhere. The stakes are high! Pro-lifers should be constantly posting evidence of the humanity of fetuses.
But they don’t.
They never have.
Not once.
And that lack of curiosity should demand your attention. They’ll post “proofs” of God’s existence. They’ll post “proofs” that queerness is bad. They’ll post “proofs” that Black Lives Matter is a terrorist organization. I mean, those proofs are not persuasive, but they are at least trying to provide evidence, even if that evidence is flawed. But when it comes to the state of a fetus, we get only assertions. We must protect the unborn. The unborn are the most marginalized and in need of our help. Abortion is murder. Why? Why do you believe this? What evidence do you have for any of this?
The Truth Behind The Silence
It’s not enough to just point at pro-lifers and laugh at their “inability” to examine evidence. When it comes to deeply held convictions, evidence can be poison to them. They don’t know, they believe. Life Begins at Conception. No need to examine the evidence, we just hold that belief. If it is challenged, just continue to make assertions louder and louder until the other side gives up. If you feel the possibility of a shred of truth getting into your head, start calling the opposing side baby killers. Call them names until you believe that horrible stuff about them, because if they are killing babies, then any amount of incuriosity from you is justified. Why should you feel bad about your minor sin of intellectual dishonesty when they are literal murderers?
Pro-lifers know they are wrong, or at least they suspect. A person who is absolutely sure of their rightness is a person who is unafraid of new information. Not that it’s wrong to have doubts. Even if you are right, it is natural to have doubts. But the healthy thing to do in those doubting moments is to pursue those doubts, to reexamine your belefs. If you find evidence that you were wrong, then it was good you doubted, because now you know better. On the other hand, if you find out that your initial belief was correct, then you’ve proven the doubt was merely a moment of emotional weakness. You’ve bolstered your confidence in your knolwedge. A person who does not pursue their own doubt is a person who is pretty sure that the influx of new knowledge will be a death sentence to their beliefs. That is the pro-life conundrum. They must vehemently believe in their positions and call their opponents murderers, but they must never, ever, ever, ever check to see if there is evidence for their assertions.
In the end, it isn’t merely about the question of whether Life Begins at Conception. For the belief one way or the other did not come out of nothing, ex nihilo. No one just randomly picked pro-life or pro-choice. These positions arise because they have political ramifications. It is no secret that anti-abortion policies injure, kill, and otherwise oppress women. If life does not begin at conception - if abortion is not necessarily wrong - then you would be a monster to support anti-abortion policies. Thus the need to invent wholesale the Life Begins at Conception story. It is a belief born of need. They need the belief to justify the unjustifiable.
The pro-life position is exclusively the domain of the conservative. (Some conservatives are pro-choice, but non-conservatives are all pro-life.) In America, it is the core of the Evangelical Republican faith. This is a political group which vocally, gleefully oppresses women, POC, blacks, indigenous people, gays, lesbians, trans, queers, and so on. Somewhere deep down - because the religious right are humans, created by God in His image - they know these are vile beliefs that no decent person would ever hold or act on. A justification is needed. What if the women were baby killers? Well then, it wouldn’t just be okay to institute laws restricting their freedoms, it would be the only morally just thing to do.
First and foremost they want to restrict the freedoms of those minorities, if not ouright murder them. This requires beliefs to justify that, beliefs such as Life Begins at Conception. However, this belief was not born out of evidence. Ordinarily it’s not wrong to create a belief because you want it to be true - so long as you then pursue evidence and discard the belief if it turns out you are wrong. So they must never try to find the evidence. If they cannot find it, or if the evidence is against them, they lose not only the belief of Life Begins at Concpetion, but all the beliefs that allow them to persecute minorities.
And if you disagree with what I’ve said, then ask yourself why the evidence has not been shown yet? Why haven’t pro-lifers put forward the proof that they are correct? It’s been 50 years since Roe v. Wade. Not once in that time has a pro-life person cogently, rationally shown convincing evidence that Life Begins at Conception. The lack of this evidence tells all. It’s a scam. It’s a cover. The pro-life movement exists to kill women - or to keep them barefoot, pregnant, and chained to the stove.
If you don’t think so, then prove it. Show me the incontrovertable evidence (not mere assertions) that Life Begins at Conception, that I’m picking on you unfairly. But I don’t think you can. If any pro-lifer has stumbled onto this post, I don’t think you want to look for that evidence. You are afraid, as you should be, that perhaps the evidence is not in your favor. And once you know that, you will be compelled to change your belief to match the available evidence. Having done that, you can no longer gleefully support the policies that keep women oppressed. And if you can’t oppress women, what’s the point of being pro-life?