An Ecocentric Perspective on Abortion

Views absent from the abortion debate

THE FIGHT OVER ABORTION is prominent in today’s news now that the U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to negate the constitutional right for women to choose. Abortion is a very controversial subject, one that’s debated for social, political, legal, religious, and—far less commonly—environmental reasons. I’d like to offer a few non-anthropocentric thoughts on the matter.

The moral arguments

Abortion is opposed on grounds that it destroys human life and is therefore morally wrong. But consider this argument in light of how society treats non-human animals and other life.

Society has no qualms about killing animals in mass numbers, such as chickens, cows, wildlife as “game,” and so on. It has few qualms about degrading or destroying the natural habitats (homes, food, everything) of wildlife, often to the point of species extinction. This discompassionate behavior toward other animals results in untold suffering and death on an unimaginable scale. If this is not morally wrong, then how can the destruction of human fetuses be regarded as such?

The opposing social view is that legalized abortion is morally just in that it is wrong to deny women the opportunity to choose. Thus, a woman has higher moral standing than the unborn she carries. While this view coincides with a more equitable valuing of human life and more-than-human life, that balancing is not, as far I can tell, a consideration in the right-to-choose argument.

Like “right to life” proponents, pro-choice advocates can be extremely anthropocentric. An ultra-humanist view seems to undermine the pro-choice case against the moral equivalency of a woman and a human that has yet to be born.

Self-assigned or God-given privilege

Moral concern for the unborn human far outstrips that for non-human life in societies that are heavily anthropocentric. Unlike the human fetus, non-human life is undeserving of significant moral consideration because it is not human. This view stems from self-proclaimed human supremacy (essentially a “might makes right” attitude) or from a belief that non-human animals do not have souls whereas human fetuses do. In either case, this reasoning is ethically untenable. 

When human life begins

The question of “when life begins” is front and center of the abortion debate. Does human life begin at birth, when a fetal heartbeat is first detected, or when a human egg becomes fertilized? Biologically, selecting that definitional moment is arbitrary. Human life is a continuum along which egg and sperm cells (the human haploid) are passed from one adult generation to another. Going back in time, human life extends from its other-than-human ancestors. Religiously or spiritually, people can believe that human life begins at any point consistent with a doctrine of their choosing. Humanists, on the other hand, may prefer a late developmental stage in the unborn organism out of a sense of compassion. That being said, in a pluralistic society, what makes sense to one person or group will make no sense to another.

Legalized Abortion Favors Population Stabilization

Most people acknowledge that the vast human numbers on Earth today are a factor in deforestation, climate change, loss of natural ecosystems, overfishing, overhunting, spread of invasive species, biodiversity loss, wildlife extinctions, and human poverty and hunger. Evidence suggests that human population overgrowth, and corresponding ecological overshoot, would be significantly worse if women were not permitted to end their pregnancies.

In 1986, a paper appeared in the journal Clinics in Obstetrics and Gynaecology entitled “Role of abortion in control of global population growth.” Based on data from 116 of the world's largest countries, the research supported “the contention that abortion is essential to any national population growth control effort”:

Except for a few countries with ageing populations and very high contraceptive prevalence rates, developed countries will need to maintain abortion rates generally in the range of 201-500 abortions per 1000 live births if they are to maintain growth rates at levels below 1%…No developing nation wanting to reduce its growth to less than 1% can expect to do so without the widespread use of abortion, generally at a rate greater than 500 abortions per 1000 live births.

The authors noted that “Widespread availability of abortion is a necessary but not sufficient condition to achieve growth rates below 1%. A high contraceptive prevalence is essential as well in order to achieve growth rates below 1%.”

While other research papers published before 2000 also indicated a significant effect of abortion on population growth or fertility, I’ve not been able to find anything more recent. This apparent lack of followup inquiry is rather odd and is probably tied to recent sociopolitical disdain for the topic of overpopulation.

Better choices

If only it wasn’t necessary to control human numbers to protect other life on Earth. But it absolutely is! Obviously, for a host of reasons, abortion is not the option of choice. Nor need it be. A society committed to bringing our population into balance with Earth has better alternatives: greater advancement and equality for women, widespread availability of contraceptives, vigorous promotion of small and child-free families, and education on the harm caused by population overgrowth. I for one am not about to go around cheering for more abortions.

By way of full transparency, let me end by saying that apart from my ecocentrism, I believe it is an individual’s decision on whether or not to have an abortion. On this matter, I’m a genuine libertarian—government should stay out of a woman’s body.

Some of you on Scale Down have asked me about my thinking on abortion. So there you have it. Now it’s your turn. We can agree or disagree—and still always be friends in defense of Mother Earth.

Whose morality? (chart by Brad Smith, School of Art & Design, University of Michigan; photo by T. Povilitis)