Problematic Sprouting

The sprouting of pronatalist discussion grew a bit from last year, but not in productive ways, thanks to voices like Elon Musk and others. Among pronatalist beliefs that affect all people, they also include negative attitudes towards those who do not have children, particularly when it is a conscious choice. This year it is more clear that they want attention to scarily germinate a white, tech, eugenic, Silicon Valley limb on a very ancient pronatalist tree. Wrongly freaked out by declining birthrates, as a Mercator article relates, they tend to “promote, in practice if not in speech, a selective pronatalism: more babies of a certain kind.”

The voices of Malcom and Simone Collins came on the scene last year, and we’ve seen more of them on their own podcast, as guests on a few others, and getting more digital ink as ‘premier pronatalists’. Titles coming out like this one in The Guardian send such a damaging message: “America’s top pronatalists on having ‘tons of kids’ to save the world.” The last thing we need to be doing is doubling down on old pronatalist messaging to keep the economic Ponzi scheme of growth going at all costs.

And often it has been falsely talked about like pronatalism as a new ‘trend’, or something ‘on the rise’. The truth is it’s been baked into the engine of society for so long. What we are seeing is just another twist in the same old pronatalist playbook.

However, while not enough, the good news is some media have called out this misinformation, like Sarah Jones in New York Magazine, “There’s Nothing New About Pronatalism.” Emily Klancher Merchant from University of California, Davis and Win Brown, of University of Washington, discuss the Ponzi scheme truths in “Pronatalism won’t solve our social, economic problems.” Yes! We need to see a lot more of this.

Positive Sprouting

Two sprouts of note are political in nature. In the run up to the election, the Alliance of Childfree Voters was started by Shannon Coulter (who also heads the organization, Grab Your Wallet) and is described as “a nonpartisan grassroots coalition of individuals and organizations fighting for the rights and voices of childfree and childless voters worldwide.” This is an example of what I discuss in my 2022 Childfree Trending piece regarding efforts that move toward the Coalescence stage of movement building.

Similarly, how can I not mention the Vance ‘childless cat lady’ comment that spurred big waves of discourse not only about and from childfree people, but from the wider demographic of those who have no children for whatever reason. It is a sign that given the right conditions, childfree, childless and all in between who have no children can join as one voice, which I contend is a necessary step for the no-children collective to progress as a movement to its Coalescence stage.

Other Notes of Interest

Algorithmic Mischief

Along the lines of promoting this new pronatalist propaganda twist, I have seen more algorithmic mischief on sites like Musk’s X. For example, search for #childfree, one commonly sees very little that is current, and way more tweets that are old. On Facebook, algorithms continue to push pronatalist results in feeds. Case in point, my Families of Two: Childfree and Beyond feed has seen a huge rise in posts having to do with families, birth, pregnancy, and on and on.

Childfree YouTube Videos

Now there has been a growing number of videos on YouTube for some time, but this last year I observed a tick upwards by people from more countries. This sure helps the childfree conversation reach more audiences globally. Podcasts are migrating to videos as well, which I hope in turn will bring more faces to podcast hosts taking on a wide range of childfree-related topics.

Global Discussions Leveled

In past annual childfree trending pieces I have highlighted discussions on childfree topics globally. This year I have seen a little leveling off of this, with the exception of pieces out of Malaysia, and Indonesia.

Childfree-Related Terms

Also in the past annual childfree trending pieces I have lamented about the continued unclear use of terms related to those who have no children by choice. In 2024, I have especially noticed more use of ‘childfree by choice’ and ‘child-free’ than ‘childfree’. I still contend that given the origination of ‘childfree’ in textbooks back in the 70s to mean those with no children by choice, to use ‘childfree by choice’ is redundant. You also still see the use of ‘child-free’ and ‘childfree’ out there to mean not having children right now. No matter the intended usage, it continues to reflect algorithmic strategy – the use of specific terms and phrases to get clicks despite unclearness or inaccuracy. Me, I just use childfree when I am referring to those who have no children by choice. You will always know what I mean!

****

I want to close with a call to action. In the coming year, when you see the white, eugenic techs on their pronatalist podium, we need to call out their agenda and its purpose, and defend reproductive freedom and ethics. In 2025, please join me in supporting important advocacy work dedicated to this cause and more!

The post 2024 Childfree Trending appeared first on Laura Carroll.

Sample of 18-49 Age Group Who Are Not Parents and Say They Are Unlikely to Have Children

Life Fulfillment

When asked who has it easier — people who don’t have children or people who do, seventy-seven percent of respondents in this group chose the option: “doesn’t have much to do with having children.” I like to think that this is a sign that more people are seeing through the pronatalist Fulfillment Assumption (see The Baby Matrix) and to the reality that parenthood can be one path to fulfillment in life.

Major Reasons for Not Having Children

On this item, fifty-seven percent responded a major reason is that they “just don’t want to.” In my interviews two plus decades ago with childfree people this was harder for them to directly come out and say! I say this high of a percentage is a sign that more people are more comfortable being honest about this reason to make the childfree choice.

Forty-four percent responded that they wanted “to focus on other things, like [their] job or other interests.” In the last two decades, this has been a common reason childfree people express as a reason they don’t want children.

Thirty-eight percent responded “concerns about the state of the world, other than the environment.” Childfree couples I’ve interviewed since the late 90s did not specifically speak to this reason. While not in the top three reasons, concerns about overpopulation were concerns made by some, but not as important as just not having the desire to parent.

Work-Related Experiences

When asked about having “felt left out of conversations with coworkers who have children,” seventy-one percent responded “No.” Sixty-five percent responded “No” to ever having been  “expected to take on extra work or responsibilities.”  Both of these percentages are higher than I would expect. In my interviews and seeing in social media for many years now, childfree women (in particular) feeling left out and being expected to take on more has been common commentary.

Sixty percent responded “No” to having been given less flexibility than people with children. This too is different than common commentary out there, e.g., childfree people experiencing parents getting more flexible work hours and having an easier time taking time off for child-related responsibilities.

Perhaps this points toward some current-day progress of the experiences of people who aren’t parents in the workplace.

The Topic of Having Children in Conversation

Sixty-eight percent responded that this topic came up with friends “rarely” or “never.” Seventy-two percent responded that it came up “rarely or “never” with their parent(s). That’s pretty high.

The Dating Scene

When asked what impact they think being unlikely to have children has had on their dating life, seventy-eight percent responded “neither positive or negative.” A good sign.

Sample of Age 50 or Older Who Are Not Parents

Here are a few percentages that stuck out to me in this sample group:

Thoughts on Having Children

When asked what best describes their thoughts on having children, thirty-eight percent responded there was a time when they wanted children. Thirty-two percent responded they never had wanted children. Twenty-five percent responded they weren’t sure whether or not they wanted to have children.

Regarding those who responded that had never wanted children, thirty-two percent is higher than other numbers we have seen over time. For many years, census numbers have hovered at about one in five of women ages forty to forty-four who did not have children without delineating the reason(s). On the other side, for over sixty percent of respondents it was not always the case that they did not want them. This lends credence to the value of longitudinal study to hone on these experiences.

Major Reasons for Not Having Children

For the item asking the major reason they did not have children, thirty-nine percent responded that “It just never happened,” thirty-three percent responded they “didn’t find the right partner,” and thirty-one percent responded they “just did not want to.” It’s great to finally be getting more research delineations like this!

Pressure

When asked when they were younger, how often did they feel pressure from spouse/partner, family, friends, and society in general, responses ranged eight percent or less for “extremely often”/“very often” and forty-three to fifty-seven percent “Never.”  This suggests a sign of progress!

Impact on Relationships

When asked how has not having children impacted their relationships, sixty-four to seventy-seven percent responded that it has had neither positive nor negative with these groups: their spouse/partner, friends with children, parents, and siblings. This suggests this may be experienced less now than in the past.

Worry About the Future

For the item asking how much they worry about the future in certain areas, forty-four percent responded either “rarely or “never” to worrying about being lonely as they age. This decent percentage runs contrary to the pronatalist messaging that those with no children will be lonely in their elder years.

Parent Care

When asked how much of a reason are certain factors for why they would provide more care for their parents than their siblings, the highest major reason response was forty-seven percent for saying they would due to “living closer” to their parents than their siblings. Almost half —  forty-nine percent — responded that not having children was not a reason that they would provide more care for their parents than their siblings. This goes contrary to common thinking and what many childfree people have shared in interviews over the years.

The Two Group Sample

While the survey gives us a good deal of interesting information about two large age-range groups, a more specific breakdown by age in the 18 to 49-year-old sample group would have told us more and possibly better explained some percentages in this study that seemed higher than expected. For example, a sample divided into ten year age increments (and by gender), may have told us more about how the experiences of those on the younger end versus those on the older end of the age spectrum of this sample group.

A longitudinal look would also tell us even more about people’s thinking and experience. Think about it; an eighteen year-old’s thinking can be very different than a forty-nine-year old! In my longitudinal study (the only one I know of to date) that tracked twenty-five women over ten years starting in their twenties, twenty-four percent had what I termed ‘shifts in sureness’ about not wanting children over the course of the study. Their answers to the questions I asked them each year changed over time. See 25 Over 10 for these stories and where they landed at the end of the study (and many other interesting findings).

I know that many childfree people get frustrated when others claim they will change their minds about kids in time, but the truth is life evolves and so can feelings. Research has shown that “early articulators” or those who know early in life they don’t want children are more likely to not change their minds, but more study needs to be done in general about the experiences of those with the intent not to have children and the evolution of their reproductive lives over time.

Final Note

I have also noticed a good number of articles discussing this research saying it has indicated a growing number of people “are choosing not to have kids” or something similar. I would contend that more accurately, the Pew Research Center study found that forty-seven percent of adults between the ages eighteen and forty-nine who don’t have children responded “they are unlikely to ever have children in the future.” The former wording suggests the choice has been fully made; the latter wording reported in the study indicates intention. It’s important to describe the results as the research states it.

All and all, this Pew Research Center study sheds 2024 light on a good number of areas related to research on not having children!

The post Commentary on the New Pew Research Center Report on U.S. Adults Who Don’t Have Children appeared first on Laura Carroll.

Upon its availability for stocking stuffer deals last holiday season, A Special Sisterhood ranked in the top 5 on Amazon Hot New Releases in its category for a month! Now the whole month of March is continuing to celebrate women from history who never had children.

Along with wanting to educate young people in an entertaining way that having no children is not a new phenomenon, I want A Special Sisterhood to be a way to build the larger community of women who have no children, no matter the reason.

One of the biggest things women who have no children no matter the reason are the pronatalistic ways society (ies) treat those who do not reproduce.

On a meta level, this book is a way to strenghten this larger collective is necessary to mobilize toward efforts to challenge pronatalism in social, cultural and policy realms of society.

Developing this inspiring book was a great experience, including collaborating with gifted illustrator, Nataliia Tonyeva. The most difficult part was deciding on just 100 – there are so many amazing women from history who never had children that this could be a whole series!

The post Celebrating Women’s History Month! appeared first on Laura Carroll.

Continued Expansion

As I have commented in previous childfree trending pieces, the amount of ink, print and digital, on a range of childfree-related topics has done nothing but continue to grow!

Having watched what’s been out there on childfree topics since I started my top blog, La Vie Childfree in 2009 (which is now a childfree writings library in the Childfree Zone of this site), from one year to the next certain topics get more discussion. This year, I have noticed there’s been a bit more focus on a couple of stubborn stereotype areas: the myth that somehow all people who make the childfree choice are selfish and predicting regret as childfree women in particular reach the end of their reproductive lives.

One area I’ve seen more attention paid to this year has to do with the claim that there are now more childfree people than ever before. Are there more childfree people, or is it more that the print and online exposure has grown such that more and more childfree people can be seen and heard?  

Over twenty years ago when I set out to find happily married childfree couples for Families of Two, the digital world was nowhere near what it is today. But childfree people were out there; they came out in droves to be interviewed. This told me that at the time, at least in the United States, many childfree people lived in the tributaries of society. Unlike then, today there is such a more expansive space for childfree people to be seen, heard, and find community.

Over the last year, I have seen more online discourse on more women starting at age eighteen saying they do not want to have children. And a Michigan State University study that came out this year indicates one in five adults (adults being age 18 and up) said they did not want children. More gen Z’s are weighing in these days, and more longitudinal research can help to hone in on what actually happens over time.

Discourse on Pronatalism

I am thrilled that this past year pronatalism has been talked about more than ever before. More articles, op-eds, papers, and publications have made more people aware of the negative impacts of pronatalism. Let’s just say about a decade ago, publishers would not even consider picking up a book on this topic. And getting publicity for The Baby Matrix  was tough to say the least. No one wanted to talk about it. But since its release, I’ve tried to help this topic get into public discourse, and thanks to academia, NGOs, and the media, 2023 has been the best I’ve seen yet.

This is important to childfree people because the more people see through pronatalist assumptions and beliefs that have to do with choosing not to have children, the more these assumptions and beliefs can be abandoned. Seeing through pronatalism’s untruths and myths especially as it relates to childfree people supports the acceptance of the childfree choice. It also sets the stage to live with mindsets that reflect truths and today’s realities.

Emerging Pronatalist Forces

Along with the positive, unfortunately there has also been a new emergence of pronatalist forces that work against chipping away at pronatalism. This year a contingent of people have come out as wealthy, proud pronatalists who are very worried about falling birthrates. The spotlight started with Simone and Malcolm Collins who founded pronatalist.org, which has a mission to have wealthy elites have as many children as possible to “combat falling birthrates.”  To do so, they want to create a movement that “encompasses various initiatives, including government policies that provide financial incentives for families to have more children, cultural campaigns that promote the idea that parenthood is the most important role for women, and religious or ideological beliefs that emphasize the importance of procreation.”

We see governments trying (unsuccessfully) to increase births through incentivization, which is a top down type of effort, but this new effort can be characterized as by wealthy citizens from the ground up. And it is becoming more organized. Recently, there was an entire conference in Austin, Texas, to find solutions to a supposed tragic situation of birthrate collapse. Meanwhile as of this writing the world population has a net gain of one person every 22 seconds.

In the coming year, I hope that this force will be outdone by more highlighting of the negative impacts of pronatalism and the serious problems with seeing population and birthrate numbers only through a human-centric and economic lens.  

As I have been hammering for a while now, taking down pronatalism is in the best interest of us all, not just those who don’t have or want children. Its decimation also anchors the end game of the childfree choice being just as socially and culturally acceptable as having children.

Bring on 2024

Going into 2024, I anticipate even more Gen Y and Z voices speaking out about multifaceted aspects of the childfree choice and moving the needle towards fuller acceptance. Bring it on! I am here to offer long-view perspective and wisdom gained from years of giving it my best to work toward this societal change.

Happy 2024!

The post 2023 Childfree Trending appeared first on Laura Carroll.

After founding and heading International Childfree Day awards and social media for ten years, I have passed torch to Childfree Media Ltd., who has the passion, skills and vision to take this Day into its next chapter of global awareness and celebration!

* Onward and upward!*

The post Passing the International Childfree Day Torch! appeared first on Laura Carroll.

After ten years of heading all that goes into International Childfree Day (ICD) Awards each year and running its social media year round, it is time for me to pass the torch to new leadership!

If you are interested in learning what it takes to make the annual awards happen and running ICD’s presence online, contact me at lauralcarroll88@gmail.com!

Let’s keep the awards going and expanding global awareness of ICD!

Laura Carroll, ICD Founder

The post International Childfree Day News! appeared first on Laura Carroll.

Emergence

Emergence is the first stage of a social movement. In this stage, there is dissatisfaction with a social condition or policy, and people are putting it out there. During this stage, media commonly increases on the situation or issue. Over the last twenty plus years, the rise in media attention on childfree topics and people has surely been the case! The huge increase in all types of media has been nothing short of amazing. Then add to it the surge of other forms in the digital sphere, from blogs and forums to social media platforms and sites that address misperceptions and treatment of childfree people and build childfree community.

Coalescence

In the next stage, the Coalescence stage, the discontent becomes more focused and organized. It goes beyond a group of discontented people to one that mobilizes to become more strategic and develop plans of action. While the efforts of the childfree collective are supporting the path to its normalization and strengthening as a community, we have yet to see more formal organization to create types of action.

However, we are seeing sprouts of this. For example, in 2022, the second annual Childfree Convention showcased sessions with speakers from a variety of countries discussing a range of childfree-related topics. On one hand, the Childfree Convention exemplifies an organized effort to build childfree community, and a global one at that. Future conventions are ripe to become a platform for focusing on strategic ways for childfree people to organize in areas we would like to see tangible change.

The new organization, New Legacy Institute (NLI), a social justice advocacy institute exemplifies a Coalescence stage effort. In addition to childfree people, it seeks to bring together the larger cohort of people without children to “address the social and policy inequities” faced by them. Founder Christine Erickson states its mission is “to generate constructive change in cultural, organizational, and institutional policies that exhibit biases against people without children.” NLI initiatives seek the equitable treatment of those with no children in “workplaces and public institutions, supported by public policy, and accurately reflected in media and cultural narratives.”

Bureaucratization

The next phase is the Bureaucratization stage of the social movement life cycle. In this phase, we see an increasing number of formal organizations, e.g., NGOs, and coalitions form, as the goals of the collective become more structured. When the childfree movement transitions to this stage we will see more organizations with formal campaigns and coalitions to eliminate things like inequitable workplace policies that favor those who are parents and legislative policies that give tax advantages to people with children. We would also potentially see more formalized campaigns to address needed changes regarding pronatalist issues in the media, entertainment industy, healthcare (e.g., sterilization denial), and school curricula.

Decline

Stage four, the Decline stage, can occur when the movement has achieved its goals and there is no reason to continue, which in the case of the childfree movement would mean the attainment of normalization and mainstream acceptance of the childfree choice, and reflected as such, socially, culturally, and through policy. The Decline state can also mean the failure of a movement, but that is not going to happen with the childfree movement!

On Other Channels

Briefly on other channels, this year we have seen more out there that attacks pronatalism. This of course benefits seeing through the stereotypes, negative judgments and untruths about the childfree choice and those who make it. On other upsides, as in past Childfree Trending pieces, this year we have seen even more global exposure in the media. There also continues to be more childfree voices than ever creating great content, podcasts, and engaged in efforts to strengthen the global childfree community.

On the downside, as in previous Childfree Trending pieces, the inconsistent language usage of childfree, child free, childfree, childfree by choice, and childless frustratingly remains. Algorithmic strategy may ultimately drive this, but it does not help the understanding of those who do not have children by choice, and all the other ways in which people can end up not becoming parents.  

And on a mixed channel, as we hit eight billion people this year and continue to see the climate crisis deepen, we have seen more discussion and highlighting of people choosing not to have children. While it is for a sad reason, it has been a way for the childfree choice to get more coverage and publicity.

With 2022 coming to a close, as I look back at my 20+ years of work as a childfree researcher, writer, and activist, I continue to feel optimistic about where this collective effort for social and cultural change is headed. May we continue to strengthen as a community and progress as a social movement in 2023!

The post 2022 Childfree Trending: A Big Picture Look at the Childfree Social Movement appeared first on Laura Carroll.

From Childfree Readers

The two biggest themes of reactions to this longitudinal study from childfree readers have included:

Validating

By and large, childfree people who have written me used this word to describe what they learned about the childfree women in this study, particularly those who remained 100% childfree for its duration. Participant reasons for being childfree, the benefits, the challenges, and the tenth year “looking back” questions pertaining to their childfree life over the course of a decade resonated with these readers.  

Surprising

I’ll start by saying I was surprised by how many childfree readers were surprised, sometimes literally shocked by the stories of the participants in what I call the “Shifts in Sureness” (SS) group — those who experienced times over the course of the decade when they did not feel 100% childfree.

The surprise and shock also related to the women who, by the end of the study, had taken on a parental role in their lives. Even though this happened to two of the twenty-five women, some readers who wrote me expressed how they just could not believe that they ended up making such a different choice.  

As we know, society has stereotypes about the childfree choice and those who make it. These reader reactions got me thinking about something different — strong mindsets childfree people themselves can have about the childfree in general. Two include:

– Most childfree people decide early in life.

This was the case for the women in this longitudinal study, other research has spoken to this utilizing the term “early articulators,” and found that the decision to be childfree was made when people in the sample were younger, yet I caution the belief that this is what’s most common. For example, as I discuss in a chapter in Voluntary and Involuntary Childlessness: The Joys of Otherhood? (2018), my data collection since the year 2000 from online surveys and 5000+ electronic interviews and communications with childfree opposite-gender, cisgender, heterosexual, married couples indicate that about a quarter of the time the childfree decision was not made until they were married. And this age could be well into the couple’s thirties.

The point here is that while deciding early in life can happen, and even often happen, it is wise not to flatly assume that this is what is true for most childfree people.

– Childfree people don’t change their mind.

Here as well, this can be the case, and even often the case, but wise not to treat it as blanketly true. I wonder if part of the common position that childfree people don’t change their minds stems from having to deal with being expected to change their minds. From the pressure that we will change our minds can come a heel-digging reaction and stand that we don’t and won’t. As the longitudinal study reveals, and I can say from years of communicating with many people about their childfree choice, sureness can fluctuate and change. And when this happens against a backdrop that childfree people don’t change their minds, it makes it difficult to admit when they do.

Shifts in Sureness & Ambivalent Readers

Readers who had experienced shifts in sureness or considered themselves ambivalent about whether they wanted kids have written me about how the SS group in the study brought feelings of relief. They have also expressed how the stories of the SS women opened their minds to the many ways shifts in sureness and ambivalence can play out in life over the course of time. Learning the stories of those who had similar emotions yet with a whole different story and context helped them not feel as alone in their own experience.

Loved Ones Readers

Other readers have included loved ones related to those who are either childfree or leaning in that direction. These readers include parents of adult children, relatives and friends who are parents. They have written how following the lives of the women in the study helped them have a better understanding of and relationship with their childfree loved ones, as well as those who currently feel ambivalent.

Readers’ reactions and their forthcoming stories have been very informative and moving. The study and its invaluable group of twenty-five women who committed to it have given many readers a larger, deeper understanding of the childfree life, the evolution of women’s identities, and how to navigate living fully, inside and out, over time.

Thank you to all readers, and keep the communications coming!

The post Ruminations on Reactions to the Childfree Longitudinal Study, 25 Over 10 appeared first on Laura Carroll.

The post Childfree Convention Panel Discussion on Pronatalism appeared first on Laura Carroll.

The Core Question

In their discussion, Klein summarizes Greasley’s argument that “the core question…overriding everything else at the heart of the abortion debate, is whether, or when, a fetus becomes a person.”

On the anti-abortion side, the pending Mississippi case will rule on the constitutionality of a 2018 state law that bans most abortions before viability, after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. Texas law now declares life begins with a fetal heartbeat. The new Oklahoma law holds the position that life begins at fertilization. Do each of these different positions contend it constellates ‘the’ moment a person becomes a person, a being with the same value and moral status as a person who is already born, or what could be called a ‘born’ person’?

On the other side, what is the abortion rights movement’s official stand on when a person becomes a person? Cornerstone positions of the abortion rights contingent have staunchly included bodily autonomy, sexual equality and the right to choose one’s course in life. However, the movement has not come out clearly on its stance on personhood.

As we are likely on the precipice of Roe v. Wade being dismantled and opening every state to determine the answer to this question and the legality of abortion, I have been musing on whether it is time for the abortion rights movement to include its personhood stand in its framing and messaging, just as the anti-abortion faction does. Let’s explore.

Stances on Personhood

In her articulate Ms. piece, “’What Is ‘Personhood’? The Ethics Question That Needs a Closer Look in Abortion Debates,” Nancy Jecker lays out three common views of personhood. The first view “holds that fetuses qualify as persons from the moment of conception.” It means that the embryo, zygote and all developmental phases after that hold equal moral status to born persons. In effect, it makes abortion a homicide. In this case, clearly bodily autonomy, sexual equality and the right to chart one’s life do not morally outweigh the taking of a ‘person’s’ life, and as Greasley points out, these positions “struggle to prevail.”

This position also puts IVF and miscarriage arenas on troubled ground. Will IVF embryo destruction constitute homicide, and if so, how to determine punishment by law? At what point will miscarriages be considered homicide, thus punishable by law? The conception threshold position clearly opens a boatload of difficult moral, ethical and legal issues.

A second view “regards personhood as arising at some point after conception and prior to birth.” This too has its problems for the abortion rights movement if it takes this position. Greasley makes the heap example to illustrate this. Say you start with a grain of sand, and continue to add one grain at a time, there will come a time when it becomes a heap. But at what specific point is it definitively a heap? At the millionth grain mark? Why not the millionth and one mark? Greasley points out there is no “nonarbitrarily identifiable moment” when the non-heap becomes a heap. The same goes for when the evolving being becomes a person. The heap idea also breaks down at points of conception. Is it a person when the sperm penetrates the egg? Why? When it becomes a zygote? Why? There is no rational answer.

A third view “maintains that personhood begins at birth or shortly thereafter.” This position can be more easily argued as the threshold of personhood. A few points Greasley expresses why includes that birth is a highly visible event, it has “social salience” and is when we begin to “exercise our agency unmediated by another person’s body.”

Greasley also points out how we already often give more value and moral status to a born person. As a hypothetical example, say there are five frozen embryos and one baby in a burning hospital, and you could successfully save the embryos or the baby, not both. If the embryo is a person and has the same moral status as the infant, the five embryo ‘persons’ – five lives over one, should be saved. But what would happen in real life? We’d save the infant.

This idea goes way back in time. Exodus in the Bible does not express that the fetus and a person have equivalent moral value and status. As Melanie Holmes points out in The Female Assumption, “The Bible has passages that refer to the death of a fetus. One specifically differentiates between the loss of a man’s wife from the loss of a fetus; if someone caused the loss of a man’s wife, this was punishable with ‘a life for a life,’ while cause of a miscarriage was punishable with a fine” (Exodus 21:22:25). To Greasley, this seems “to make a very powerful statement about the comparative value of fetal life versus personal life;” the person has greater moral value and status than the fetus.

An Abortion Rights Movement’s Stance to Take

As we may soon be faced with the states having the power to decide, it will be especially important to fight for abortion rights in states that do not have laws yet (e.g., trigger laws) and those that have not made their legal direction clear. To do this more strongly, the abortion rights movement may be wise not to ignore taking a public ethical stance and go head-to-head with the anti-abortion faction on personhood (including how faith-based laws violate the separation of church and state) as part of its framing and messaging, and squarely put it in the spotlight. I’d choose the third position above, specifically: the fetus is an evolving being that has value, and that value increases over the course of the pregnancy, but it becomes a person and holds equal value and moral status to a born person at the time of its own birth.

This position leaves it open for states to decide positions and laws that allow for point(s) at which abortion would not be acceptable, not because it is the point at which the fetus is a person, but that the fetus has reached a level of moral value the citizens of that state believe abortion should not be allowed. It also leaves open the possibility for states to make abortion to be legal at any time during the pregnancy. Overall, this stance means that the answer to the ethical question of whether or when a fetus becomes a person, to both, the abortion rights movement would answer no.

The post The Abortion Rights Movement & the Personhood Issue appeared first on Laura Carroll.