Abortion rights supporters are increasingly confronted with alarming news regarding the steady erosion of abortion access in the United States, alongside severe penalties for women seeking to terminate unsafe pregnancies in places like El Salvador. Even in Canada, where some argue there are no abortion laws, long wait times for procedures signal a troubling trend.

In nations where abortion is legally permitted, anti-abortion advocates seem to be gaining ground. In Canada, for instance, Andrew Scheer, the recently defeated Conservative leader, is openly pro-life, as are conservative leaders from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario.

Interestingly, even among those on the left, opinions on abortion can be perplexing. Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party, has openly stated her personal opposition to abortion but insists it should remain legal. Prime Minister Trudeau, despite his progressive image and Catholic upbringing, also exhibits ambivalence towards being a staunch pro-choice advocate.

The disparity is striking: pro-life advocates are often direct and unwavering in their beliefs, while pro-choice supporters appear to struggle with their stance. The anti-abortion camp is united by a consistent belief: to terminate a pregnancy is akin to committing murder.

This creates a dilemma. While abortion rights activists have highlighted the dangers of illegal abortions and fought for women's rights, they have often neglected to directly challenge the fundamental claim that "abortion is murder."

Does this mean the anti-abortion stance has merit? Not at all. There exists a strong argument to be made that abortion should not be equated with taking a life, but this perspective is rarely articulated in public debates. This is a change that is sorely needed.

The label "pro-life" is not only misleading but nonsensical. It implies that those in favor of abortion rights advocate for death, a narrative that has persisted since the movement's inception. Scientifically, "life" is defined as a state that differentiates living organisms from inanimate matter, encompassing growth, reproduction, and change preceding death. If pro-lifers genuinely valued life, they would also advocate for veganism and oppose all forms of harm to living beings, including lawn care and pest control.

It's evident that the "life" argument presented by anti-abortion activists is not genuinely about life at all. It would be too simplistic to assert that anti-abortionists in the U.S. are predominantly pro-death penalty while opposing numerous initiatives aimed at enhancing life quality, such as universal healthcare and welfare support. Furthermore, the term "pro-life" is inherently illogical, as life is merely a descriptor of how organic matter reacts to its environment, regardless of any divine intervention.

So, what are the true motivations behind the anti-abortion stance? Some in the pro-choice camp may become overly cynical, suggesting that the pro-life movement is merely a facade for undermining women's rights. While some motivations may be rooted in misogyny, many pro-lifers sincerely believe their opposition to abortion is driven by concern for the unborn, not solely by anti-feminist sentiments.

At its core, the issue isn't merely about "life." It revolves around "consciousness." The challenge lies in how people perceive consciousness, often conflating it with the vague idea of being "alive." Do carrots or bacteria possess any form of consciousness? The absence of a brain or complex nervous system suggests they do not.

As Sam Harris articulates in his book Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion, consciousness is central to what humans value. Our empathy for living beings often correlates to our assumptions about their capacity for pleasure and pain. For example, we instinctively feel more distress over the suffering of dogs than we do for shrimp, as we view creatures through a hierarchy based on perceived consciousness.

Where does an unborn human fit into this hierarchy? The question is fraught with complexity, especially considering our limited understanding of consciousness. However, even a fundamental grasp of biology refutes the assertion that "life begins at conception." While a fertilized ovum is technically "alive," it lacks consciousness—an assertion few scientists would dispute.

It may be ethically problematic to destroy a fertilized egg, but only when such actions negatively impact conscious beings. For instance, forced abortions, like those under China's one-child policy or in North Korean labor camps, are undoubtedly violations of human rights. Yet, even in these cases, it is primarily the women who suffer, not the fetuses.

If a fertilized egg in the early stages lacks conscious experience, when does consciousness emerge? According to Scientific American, the thalamo-cortical complex, associated with human consciousness, starts developing between the 24th and 28th week of gestation, with much of the necessary neural architecture present by the third trimester. This suggests that while late-term abortion is a contentious issue, it brings valid concerns to the forefront.

If a fetus at 21 weeks possesses some level of conscious awareness, how does it compare to other conscious beings? This remains a challenging question, but it is clear that animals like pigs or cows exhibit more overt signs of consciousness than an unborn infant. It's crucial to remain sensitive to human psychology; we often view human fetuses differently from other creatures.

Ultimately, the pro-life movement should rebrand itself as "pro-consciousness." However, it is apparent that most self-identified pro-lifers are motivated by religious beliefs regarding souls, asserting that human rights supersede those of any other conscious being. While such beliefs may be compelling, they lack scientific validity.

We have no ethical obligations toward entities that cannot experience suffering, nor to those whose destruction does not cause pain to conscious beings. Until substantial biological discoveries reshape our understanding of consciousness, it is logical to assert that a human zygote cannot feel pain any more than a bacterium or plant can. Thus, in the absence of a mother who desires a child, we should not harbor moral reservations about the termination of this organism's existence.

This leads to an important question: if the pro-life perspective lacks a scientific foundation, why does it continue to exert significant influence in social and political discourse, especially in the U.S. and other regions where the debate was thought to be settled?

Much of the blame can be placed on the pro-choice movement, which often resorts to personal attacks on pro-lifers rather than addressing the core issue: is a fetus a human being?

The rhetoric of many pro-choice advocates suggests a deep-seated belief that abortion is inherently wrong, even if it is sometimes necessary. Bill Clinton's assertion in 1996 that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare" reflects a sentiment that implies moral wrongdoing, even when legality is acknowledged.

Should we truly care about the rarity of abortions? While safe and legal practices are crucial, the emphasis on rarity seems to stem from a desire to avoid burdening medical systems or subjecting women to unwanted procedures. It is widely accepted that no woman looks forward to an abortion, yet the pro-life narrative caricatures women as eager to terminate pregnancies.

The pro-life movement excels at instilling doubt within liberal circles regarding the morality of abortion. Many express the sentiment, "I despise abortion but wouldn't dictate to a woman," which appears passive-aggressive. If one believes abortion is wrong, one should stand firm in that conviction; if not, there is no need to conform to societal expectations.

A human zygote or embryo is not a fully developed human being, and its rights should never supersede those of an adult woman. Legislations like "heartbeat bills" are absurd, as a heartbeat does not equate to consciousness, similar to other animals with functioning circulatory systems.

Ultimately, the crux of our concern lies in consciousness—what we have always valued and will continue to value. As Harris notes, even when our beliefs are influenced by a desire to appease a higher power for an afterlife, we still prioritize conscious experiences that we find preferable.

The question of when consciousness develops remains unresolved, but it is crucial to recognize that late-term abortions constitute a small fraction of all abortions, typically occurring under dire circumstances for either the woman or fetus. When it comes to individual choice, influenced by economic and social factors, it is evident that a woman's conscious well-being should take precedence over the not-yet-verified inner experience of the fetus.

For advocates of reason and universal human rights to prevail, abortion rights supporters must abandon the "pro-choice" label and confront the issue head-on. Women should never feel ashamed for choosing to terminate a pregnancy, just as one wouldn't feel guilt over euthanizing a beloved pet. Ultimately, the hope is to overcome dogmatism and unite under a banner of "pro-consciousness," ensuring that all sentient beings receive the care they deserve.

If quality of life is our genuine concern, abortion should be treated as morally neutral, dependent on various circumstances. Religion should not dictate public health policy, and secular advocates for human rights must fight more vigorously against such influences. It is time for those in favor of abortion rights to stand firm in their beliefs and not shy away from the discussion. The pro-life movement is clear about its stance; so too should the rest of us.

This column is dedicated to Mochi, the sweetest, most obviously conscious creature I’ve ever known, who I was forced to take to the emergency vet for the last time in May of this year after a rapid decline from spinal degeneration. She was born in a puppy mill, underfed and over-bred for the first year or so of her life, and was a neurotic mess when my wife and I adopted her, but she still ended up living a full, happy life up to the ripe old age of 15. I still think about her every day. Consciousness IS what matters.