Navigating the Complexities of Abortion: The Role of Science
Written on
Chapter 1: The Scientific Battlefield
The issue of abortion stands as one of the most contentious topics in contemporary society. It has evolved into a fierce conflict between those advocating for reproductive rights (the pro-choice faction) and those who oppose them (the pro-life faction). Each side holds distinct beliefs regarding the status of the fetus, religious authority, and women's societal roles. Increasingly, both movements have turned to scientific assertions, presenting them as objective truths to bolster their arguments concerning a woman’s right to choose.
Scientific assertions employed by these movements exemplify a phenomenon known as "scientism," which refers to the excessive reliance on scientific authority. Jason Blakely, an associate professor of political science at Pepperdine University, contends that science serves us best when it informs and educates rather than dictates public policy. Policies grounded in scientific evidence are often distorted by ideological and political biases. What is fundamentally scientific observation is misrepresented as a rationale for how individuals should think and act. This misuse of scientific claims not only skews the social and political discourse at hand but also risks diminishing the genuine authority of science itself.
To fully grasp the current state of the abortion debate, it's helpful to reflect on the historical context leading up to the mid-1800s, a time when abortion was widely practiced and largely unregulated.
Section 1.1: A Historical Overview
Before the mid-19th century, abortion was a prevalent and unregulated procedure. Physicians sought to enhance their professional standing by claiming authority over medical knowledge, thereby elevating their status above other care providers, particularly midwives, who were the primary providers of abortion and childbirth care. This push for professionalization enabled physicians to distinguish themselves from other unregulated practitioners, leading to the establishment of the American Medical Association (AMA) which began to regulate childbirth and abortion practices.
The professionalization of medicine positioned the definition of life as a domain of scientific knowledge controlled by physicians. Abortions were deemed acceptable only under the advisement of a physician. In 1967, the AMA declared that abortions performed by qualified medical professionals were not inherently dangerous, thereby maintaining their control over the procedure.
The landmark decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973 legalized abortion based on the trimesters of pregnancy: it was unrestricted during the first trimester, permitted under appropriate medical conditions in the second, and subject to state regulation post-viability in the third trimester, emphasizing the importance of the woman-physician relationship in the decision-making process.
In 2022, the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization determined that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion, delegating the decision-making authority to individual states regarding the legality and conditions of abortion.
Section 1.2: The Scientism of Abortion
Following the Roe v. Wade decision, opponents of abortion rights began to utilize scientific arguments regarding the links between abortion and health issues, such as breast cancer and mental health effects. Scientists began to assert their authority in the abortion debate, contributing research to organizations like the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which aims to influence life-related policymaking through the lens of science.
Conversely, the Guttmacher Institute, founded in 1968, operates as both a research and advocacy organization focused on enhancing sexual health and reproductive rights globally. Both pro-choice and pro-life movements have come to regard scientific data as a critical weapon in the ongoing struggle over abortion rights, employing new research on fetal development, pain perception, and viability to support their respective positions.
When science is subordinated to political, social, and religious agendas, trust in the information produced by either side diminishes. Both factions wield science as an unassailable source of authority to support deeply held philosophical, moral, and religious beliefs. As noted by Blakely, the invocation of scientific data to resolve ethical and ideological disputes obscures the underlying values of each group. Both sides utilize biological science to justify their viewpoints, risking the outsourcing of their ethical considerations to ostensibly neutral scientific authorities.
Subsection 1.2.1: The Role of Psychological Research
Medical science can illuminate biological aspects of fetal status and women's health. Psychology offers insights into the effects of abortion on women's lives. Over the past five decades, extensive research, such as the APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion and the Turnaway Study, has consistently revealed that while abortion does not significantly harm women's mental health, restricting access can have adverse effects on their overall well-being.
Pro-choice advocates have leveraged these findings to bolster their arguments, while pro-life supporters present contrasting data to uphold their stance. This selective use of research to validate social movements exemplifies scientism—using scientific claims to dictate how people should think and behave. Psychological insights should primarily serve to educate and inform rather than prescribe beliefs or actions.
Chapter 2: The Intersection of Science and Ideology
In the first video titled "Has science buried God? Oxford professor, John Lennox, at SMU," the discussion probes the relationship between science and faith, challenging the notion that scientific advancement renders religious beliefs obsolete.
The second video, "Scientific consensus and arguments from authority," explores how scientific consensus is often misused in debates, particularly in contentious areas like abortion, emphasizing the need for critical evaluation of scientific claims.
About the Author
Dr. Catherine Aponte, the author of “A Marriage of Equals: How to Achieve Balance in a Committed Relationship,” has over three decades of experience as a clinical psychologist, focusing on couples therapy. She has also served as an Associate Adjunct Professor of Clinical Psychology at Spalding University. Dr. Aponte earned her MS and Psy.D. from Duke University and Spalding University respectively.