Does the pro-choice movement need renewal? A North Sydney man argues that it does.

Opposing movement developing new arguments from a secularist standpoint

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case National Family Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Bercerra in a 5-4 decision, finding that under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution religious clinics offering prenatal services were not required to provide information about abortion access.

This decision comes at a time when SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) is seeing an unsurprising shift in bias toward conservatism with the confirmation of conservative Neil Gorsuch to replace Antonin Scalia and the nomination of arch-conservative Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy. Many see this as a potential threat to longheld Roe v. Wade, which outlaws state-level abortion bans.

Also unsurprising, the antichoice movement hailed this as a victory for religious freedom, “life,” and ironically women.

Meanwhile, in Ireland, a referendum lifted the previous nationwide abortion ban. This was championed in Ireland as a victory for women’s autonomy, with the dissenters reflecting the views of their Anti-Abortion counterparts in the U.S. This all comes decades after the Canadian Supreme Court struck down the abortion ban with the 1988 R v Morgentaler ruling on the grounds that the ban violated Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms.

In Cape Breton, despite R v Morgentaler, abortion services literally don’t exist. Women must travel to Halifax to have the procedure done, which thankfully does not require a referral from a doctor (this practice varies by location).

However, even this has come under vocal opposition from groups such as the “Campaign for Life Coalition,” which has called for the Canadian government to defund abortion services under the argument that it forces taxpayers to pay for services they won’t use and that the money could go to other things. It is also not uncommon to pass billboards reinforcing antichoice sentiments, courtesy of the Knights of Columbus.

Speaking of moral or otherwise personal objections, there has been some interesting development in the debate recently. Arguments against choice are beginning to emerge from secular groups, as well, such as the American group Secular ProLife. This presents a new section of the debate in need of attention from the Pro-Choice side.

The crux of the secular antiabortion argument is that life begins at conception, a philosophical stance, and the zygote is thus a person with associated human rights which supersede those of a woman’s body. I say body because resources which could go to other aspects of the woman’s life ultimately go to gestation and associated changes during pregnancy.

It is noteworthy that the secularist stance is not opposed to providing access to contraceptives and pills, so long as they act to prevent gametic fusion, and are in favor of comprehensive sex education. This is logically more consistent than previous stances, which is precisely why the pro-choice movement needs to step up. The opposing movement is developing new arguments from a secularist standpoint and these will ultimately need rebuttal.

While abortion has been legal in Canada for decades now, I am worried about a sense of complacency among those who support the right to access abortion services. It is important to realize that this issue doesn’t come with a convenient endpoint. It will continue to evolve, and public stances (not to mention policy) on the subject will likely shift in response. Movements don’t end with a forum comment, or a column. We will never not be justifying abortion to the public, so saddle in for the ride. If you are in need of a saddle, the Facebook group Pro Choice Cape Breton will be happy to provide one.

I know some readers are going to wonder what my own defense of abortion is. Simply put, there is no reason to force all potential humans into the world. Potential is found in anyone alive regardless of age. Collective potential is hindered when you spread resources paper-thin under misguided moral doctrine, and I find it exceptionally selfish of the Anti-Abortion movement to force women to carry to term when the outcome of the pregnancy in question has no cost to them or their bodies.

It’s very convenient to sit up on a moral pedestal when you are not in the position you criticize. When you aren’t being forced to invest nine months in gestation, and possibly many more in child care, against your will because someone wanted a rush of the Warm Fuzzies. While it is desirable for anyone with an unwanted pregnancy to look for alternatives, and it is good to prevent unwanted pregnancy where possible, there will never not be cases where abortion is the best option. Also, I won’t deny the service to those who need it just to feel morally superior.

Matthew Penney, BSc (Hons), Cape Breton University and MSc Candidate, Acadia University, is a native of North Sydney who now lives in Wolfville.