Our culture has awakened to the need for greater social justice for traditionally marginalized groups. The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) movement has grown out of this concern, and one of its hallmark approaches is to promote equity by advocating for special consideration for those who are systemically oppressed. Through the lens of equity, special privilege is awarded to systemically-oppressed groups to compensate for their oppression. Affirmative action is an example of equity, where you hire based on consideration of race, and not just competence. It may even sacrifice some competency for better racial diversity in the workplace.
Social justice proponents claim to have concerns for the equitable treatment of all disempowered social groups, with emphasis on gaining equity for the most helpless and vulnerable of society. As a result, there have been strides made to bring equity to racial, religious, ethnic, and gender groups of people who have been traditionally disempowered and oppressed.
Abortion is a social justice issue, and women want the right to decide what happens to their pregnant bodies. But what about social justice for the fetus? Does a fetus deserve the same social justice as women, people of color, and people with nonbinary gender identities?
However, before we can talk about the fetus and its rights, we need to first decide if the fetus is a separate person, or just an extension of the woman. Some people think the fetus becomes a separate person at conception, while others say it happens once the heart can beat. Others say the fetus is part of the mother until delivery, and becomes a separate person once it takes its first breath. The way you define the fetus matters because if the fetus is a separate person, then they have rights. If the fetus is an extension of the woman and not a separate person, then the woman can do whatever she wants with her own body.
When defining the fetus, though, keep in mind that the genome of the fetus is different from that of the mother. Actually, 50% different. This contradicts the argument that the fetus is part of the woman’s body. Biologically, it is clearly a separate body, and a separate person.
Arguing that the fetus is not a living, separate person until a certain developmental stage is met, such as the heart breathing, is arbitrary. Clearly, every stage of development, from zygote onwards, is part of the development of an organism. The seed of a tree is still a tree.
The problem is that the woman is living in the world, and the fetus is living in the woman. As a result of pregnancy, a woman suddenly becomes the host of another person, and loses an aspect of her autonomy. Her pregnant body contains two people.
This goes against our culture’s worship of the individual. We want our freedom and autonomy, and find it offensive for others to claim ownership over our bodies, whether it is to enslave us to work, or enslave a woman to pregnancy. Hence, the feminist call to arms when anti-abortionists threaten pregnant women’s autonomy.
The fact is that our culture is wrong, and about a lot of things. But it is especially wrong in how it considers people as individuals. The fact is that we are social creatures, not individuals. We live in separate bodies, but we are connected to one another, like bees in a hive. We are unable to reproduce without a person of the opposite sex. We depend on one another, and in a sense are connected. This is made exceeding clear when a woman gets pregnant, and becomes connected to another person. It’s just that the other person is still in their fetus stage.
This creates a relationship between the woman and the fetus, but an unequal one. The fetus is at the mercy of the woman for food, shelter, warmth, …everything. The woman can live without her fetus, but the fetus cannot live without the woman.
This inequality of power is a problem for the fetus, whose sole power consists of moving within the womb and kicking. The woman holds all the cards. And that’s not fair.
In any interpersonal transaction, those who can walk away are at a decided advantage. Fetuses cannot walk away. They are completely at the mercy of the women who are incubating them. And if their incubation is deemed undesirable at any stage by the woman, the fetus can be subjected to eviction, which is called abortion.
It boils down to competing interests. The woman wants her body for herself, while the fetus wants her body for existence. If we care about equity, it’s clear that every advantage should be given to the fetus over the woman, to help balance the power equation.
Ironically, social justice proponents support abortion rights, since they consider the inequality of women vis-a-vis men. They ignore the inequality of the woman vis-a-vis the fetus.
To ignore the fetus and still seem consistent with social justice principles, proponents of equity define the fetus as part of the woman. If the fetus is not a separate entity, then there is no issue about equity.
And here is where we see the real issue and prejudice that blinds these social justice warriors from the plight of fetuses. They want social justice for races, sexes, genders, and ethnicities, but ignore age. The social plight of disempowered retired people is not a concern of these social justice proponents. Old people only count if they have the right race, ethnicity, or gender identity. Their age is not what matters, just their other social identifiers.
At the other end of the age spectrum is the fetus, and they don’t care about them, either. This is why the current social justice movement is ageist. They do not consider prejudice against old people or fetuses as a social justice problem.
Note that humans, like other animals, go through various stages of development. Conception starts a biological event that starts a new life. Being a fetus is a stage in that life. Ignoring the rights of the fetus because it is too young is like ignoring the rights of the elderly because they are too old. And yet, both these age groups are in need of equity, to help them during their time of vulnerability, weakness, and dependence.
Unfortunately, ageism is difficult to fight, since old activists don’t last long. The elderly are ignored, devalued, and disempowered. Anyone who cares about social justice would see the need to assist the elderly in overcoming the ageism that makes life inequitable for them. Shouldn’t the same reasoning apply to people at the fetal end of the lifetime spectrum?
Of course, this discussion has not addressed medical situations where a pregnancy threatens the woman. At that point, the fetus and woman have opposition interests. The woman dies if the pregnancy continues, but the fetus dies if it doesn’t. In that case, most people would side with the woman. But this is a relatively rare cause of abortion. Most appear to be about body autonomy and a woman’s right to self-determination.
It’s difficult to protect the rights of the unborn, since they cannot speak for themselves. I can understand why many people speak up for them. And I can understand how women might feel oppressed when told they must keep their pregnancy.
This discussion will not end the debate. But it will hopefully show why a culture concerned about equity for the weak and disempowered should consider the needs of the fetal person, who is truly the most vulnerable person of all.