Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

niyad

(120,281 posts)
Sat Jan 7, 2023, 01:38 PM Jan 2023

The Pseudoscience of 'Fetal Personhood'


The Pseudoscience of ‘Fetal Personhood’
1/3/2023 by Carrie N. Baker
Laws that ban abortion at fertilization are based on misogynist myths that minimize women’s agency and personhood.



Protestors hold signs in memory of Savita Halappanavar, who died on October 28, 17 weeks into her pregnancy after she miscarried and subsequently suffered septicaemia. Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar, claims that doctors refused to carry out an abortion as a foetal heartbeat was present. (Julien Behal / PA Images via Getty Images)

This article originally appeared in the Daily Hampshire Gazette.

Thirteen states across the U.S. now ban abortion at fertilization—the moment when an egg joins with a sperm. Another three states have passed similar bans currently blocked by courts. Many of these laws have no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, or those that threaten the health of the pregnant women.To justify these bans, anti-abortion advocates and lawmakers argue that “human life” begins at fertilization. To avoid the obviously religious nature of this position—and the legal problem of establishing as law a particular religious viewpoint with which many disagree—anti-abortion advocates now claim the idea that life begins at conception—which they call “fetal personhood”—is a scientific fact.

This view is not science, says Swarthmore biology professor Stephen F. Gilbert in a recently-published article in Natural Science. “Those people who invoke the scientific community to justify the idea that fertilization is the unequivocal moment of independent identity for the human embryo are expressing mythological and political ideas, not contemporary scientific facts.” Professor Gilbert explains that there is no consensus among biologists and embryologists about “personhood.” Many scientists recognize that “personhood” is not a scientific category at all—that “like race, personhood is defined socially, not biologically.” According to this view, says Gilbert, “there is no biological marker to personhood, and there is no ‘beginning’ to life, because gametes [eggs and sperms] are, themselves, alive. Therefore, to many biologists, personhood is an issue decided on emotions, upbringing, and politics, not science.”

. . . . .

Gilbert argues the anti-abortion view of “fetal personhood” is based on three misogynist, nonscientific myths. The first myth depicts fertilization as the culmination of a race of male sperm through a passive female environment and equates fertilization with the creation of a new life, over the act of birthing a child. The second myth is the idea of genetic determinism that valorizes DNA at fertilization as the “biological blueprint for a new individual” and downplays plasticity of genes and the environmental influences on how genes come to manifest during gestation and after. The third myth is the idea that the fetus in the womb is an independent autonomous entity within a “nutritive container”—a “seed in the soil”—marginalizing the “joint nature of maternal and fetal physiologies and anatomies.” Gilbert argues that these “false narratives combine to form a ‘pseudo-embryology’ that influences our thoughts and laws.” ************Through these misogynist myths, stories of masculine fertilization are valorized as the defining moment of human creation, whereas the feminine work of gestation and birth is diminished and marginalized. ********

“Fetal personhood” is a religious concept, not a scientific one. “The fetal personhood crusade is a mix of myth, misogyny, and politics,” says Gilbert. “Science should not be a part of it.” State bans on abortion at fertilization are religious laws, not based on science, but based on misogynist myths that minimize women’s agency and personhood.In his conclusion, Gilbert draws a parallel between today’s pseudoscience of “fetal personhood” used to justify anti-abortion laws and the pseudoscience of eugenics in the early twentieth century used to justify anti-immigration laws and forced sterilization. “We often look back on how eugenics distorted American politics a century ago, how women were being sterilized in the name of science, and we congratulate ourselves, thinking that such distortions could not happen again. They have,” says Gilbert.

https://msmagazine.com/2023/01/03/pseudoscience-fetal-personhood/
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Pro-Choice»The Pseudoscience of 'Fet...