Quo Vadis, Europe?
Despite living in a human rights-centric culture, we continually forget about the rights of one category of human beings - unborn children. A common misconception is that by protecting the right of the unborn to live, we must in turn infringe upon the dignity and bodily autonomy of women. This false dichotomy has been peddled to us by lobbyists and activists alike and I believe it is time to debunk this myth and bring to light the destructive consequences of continuing to hold fast to this misinformed belief.
A free society requires restricting evil
It is safe to say that most of us are in favour of personal freedom and self-determination, but we can also agree that this is not an absolute freedom. There are always going to be limits placed on how we exercise our freedom, to protect and not infringe upon the rights of others, such as limiting someone’s freedom to hurt us or limiting freedom as a punishment in the form of imprisonment. The disagreement does not lie in the idea of personal freedom, but in determining where to strike the balance between protecting personal autonomy and safeguarding third parties. For instance, many on the pro-abortion side have advocated for vaccine mandates, which limit individuals’ autonomous decision-making and their bodily autonomy because they believed this would protect others and further the ‘greater good’. Therefore, the argument that pro-lifers are the only ones who advocate limiting how personal freedom is exercised in certain situations to protect third parties is simply untrue. It all comes down to when we think our freedom should be limited and I believe that it ought to be limited in very few instances, including in the pursuit of protecting the weak, vulnerable, and defenseless, including unborn children.
What defines a ‘person’?
It is imperative to establish why our freedom even exists in the first place. Our freedom of self-determination exists because our European human rights legacy, rooted in the Christian tradition, recognices our inherent human dignity which is inviolable. Dignity is the state of being worthy of respect and honour, a virtue of our humanity. Therefore, our dignity allows us to exercise our freedom to self-determine. We have self-determination because of our dignity, not the other way around. Many have attempted to circumvent this by arguing that humans have dignity when they can self-determine when they obtain so-called ‘personhood’. This has led to severe human rights violations and mass genocide of a class of human beings who cannot yet self-determine - that being babies in the womb.
The theory of ‘personhood’ purports that a human becomes a ‘person’ when he/she possesses the qualities that enable individuals to lead valuable lives, such as moral agency, use of language, and logical reasoning. In other words, these qualities align with the ability to ‘self determine’. However, this theory which is often used to justify wavering the right to life when it comes to unborn children falls short because newborn babies and toddlers also do not yet fully possess such faculties, so does that make them not qualify as a ‘person’ deserving of the legal right to live? What about a person who is mentally incapacitated or who has lost their mental capacity due to developing dementia? You can see how this definition fails to protect the dignity of different classes of humans, not limited to unborn babies, and how it is our inherent human dignity that underpins all our other personal freedoms.
Perhaps, a better theory of personhood would align with the biological definition of when a human being comes into existence, which biologists agree is at conception when a zygote (a separate entity with unique DNA) is formed and instead focus on the ability to possess the aforementioned qualities, regardless of whether they already possess them, have ceased to possess them or have a condition which alters their ability to exercise those qualities fully or partially. This would safeguard the dignity of all human beings regardless of their age, stage of development or mental capacity. This is because it is our humanity which gives us dignity, not our ability to ‘self-determine’.
The real war on women
I believe that a culture which promotes abortion as a simple matter of ‘choice’ carries with it wide-ranging relational consequences. Relational breakdown can be both a cause and a symptom of abortion. It can be a cause because a common motivation for abortion is pregnancy out of wedlock (or even out of a committed relationship) or where there is relational distance between the mother and father. Women are less likely to abort when they are married and/or feel confident that the father of their children will stick around and help raise the child.
It can also be a symptom as abortion adversely affects the mother’s psychological state and hence, her relationships - she is 150% more likely to commit suicide, 81% more likely to develop mental health disorders, and 115% more likely to abuse alcohol1. The symptoms of post-abortive syndrome are comparable to those of post-traumatic stress disorder2 experienced by Vietnam War veterans3. It is despicable that we are inflicting this trauma onto women, while simultaneously lying to them that they are supposed to feel fine or even ‘empowered’ afterwards. The resulting demise in the woman’s mental health can place a significant strain on her interpersonal relationships, especially if she feels ashamed to speak about her pain to others, which creates more relational distance. This can affect her future propensity to create healthy relationships, which does not help to lay the foundation for a strong social fabric.
Fertility crisis
How many families of five do you know? Probably not many. Birth rates are declining across Europe and the potential of a population collapse is not that far-fetched if birth rates continue to drop consistently below replacement level4. While some radical climate activists believe this to be a positive, it will have serious implications on our aging population and place undue pressure on the decreasing numbers of young people to pay taxes to take care of the elderly. This is especially concerning in individualistic societies, which characterise many European states today, as it is no longer the extended family looking after the old and infirm, but instead, there is an increased reliance on social care and pension schemes, which are funded by the taxpayer. Abortion contributes to this in two ways: a) high numbers of babies are terminated before they are born (globally more than a quarter of babies in the womb are aborted5) and b) abortion increases the risks of future infertility and miscarriages in women6. Studies show that abortion is the second largest cause of female infertility7. Less young people mean less innovation, less labour and less taxable income to fund public services. Everyone loses in this situation. Who will innovate to come up with solutions to tackle environmental challenges? Let us not have to find out.
Can we come out of the demographic winter?
Cruelty is part of our human sinful nature and it is the task of the law to restrain evil to protect the vulnerable, both mother and child. The state and legislature hold the power to influence the culture so that it promotes life and takes care of the vulnerable. Data demonstrates that when an act is either made legal or illegal, it shifts the cultural perspective on its morality and accordingly increases or decreases people’s propensity towards committing it.
Therefore, the onus is on nation-states to take action in promoting policies that empower families, financially and otherwise. The family is the most vital institution in society and it is in the interests of the nation-state to support it and empower low-income families and mothers in vulnerable positions so that they feel less compelled to resort to abortion.
Public institutions such as schools, as well as private bodies should use their authority to educate the youth on the relational significance of sex, the realities of the abortion procedure, and its adverse physical and psychological effects on women. It is insufficient to teach about ‘safe’ sex but disregard the psychological ramifications that come with casual sex and with abortion. A culture that recognises the value of sex is a culture that is a fertile ground for strong marriages and families, which constitute the cornerstone of our democracies. It is not the state apparatus or individuals that make the nation, but families.
The European Union ought to remind member states of the pillars on which the EU stands - the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Articles 1 and 2 bestow the absolute right to dignity and life, which many member states seem to have forgotten.