In the volcanic reaction to the overturning of Roe v Wade, I observed a fascinating ideological paradox.

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

In November 2020, Megan Markle wrote an excellent op-ed for The New York Times in order to openly discuss and destigmatize the “unbearable grief, experienced by many but talked about by few.”  These words were written to describe her experience of miscarrying her “baby” in July of 2020. She writes of the “staggering commonality of this pain” that women experience in losing unborn children.  However, just less than 2 years after publishing  her article entitled “The Losses We Share,” Markle spoke out regarding her “sentiment of despair”  that she and other women no longer have a constitutional right to intentionally lose their babies.   

Does anyone else notice the inconsistency of these responses?

Here is a public figure, changing her narrative from the mother who is suffering “unbearable” loss to that of an activist on behalf of the rights of all mothers to initiate loss of their unborn babies “not just because it’s what we need as women, but it’s what we need as people.” 

The heart of the matter 

I suspect that for Markle, and those who see the world from her perspective, there is no awareness of contradiction here. In one scenario, the story centers on grief and in the other, the sentiments are arranged around a woman’s right to have an abortion. My view is that both discourses are about the same exact event. The heart of the matter is the death of a baby.  

For those who are pro-choice, the flipping of the script comes with a decisive change of rhetoric. Mothers are women. Babies are fetuses. Death is a choice. Loss is equality.

Not fully human

There is nothing new about this compartmentalism. Recently and unrelated to this topic I was researching the Roman conquests of Britain.

In a nutshell the story goes something like this: The Romans viewed the Britons as barbarians. They were savages. They lived in swamps. They were not cultured but “naked and unshod.” They were apparently not fully human in the same way as the Romans. Furthermore, as the Roman politician, Strabo, announced, Britain was “virtually Roman property.” The Roman conquests were brutal.  Unmentionable acts of human disregard are etched on the history of Britain. Women were impaled on spikes. Daughters were ravished in front of their mothers. Yet, the same soldiers who acted so immorally traveled home and wrapped their arms around wives and caressed the heads of their own daughters. How is this possible? How does this kind of behavioral paradox exist?

The age-old precondition

The age-old precondition is dehumanization – this occurs when one group of humans regard another group as lacking full humanness. It follows the belief that when a group is shifted out of being fully human, they can exist outside of the domain of moral concern.  Accordingly, they can be treated in whatever way is required in order to affirm the power of the “fully human” group.

I will fumble with the neuroscience here and sum it up like this. When we strip away someone’s full humanity, the part of our brain that sees people as fully human fails to activate. It is this neurological process that allows people to short circuit the parts of the brain that are involved in the emotional navigation of our decisions. The inhibitions and reservations that would normally prevent us from mistreating other humans are bypassed.

Dehumanization is a psychological response to social and political forces.

Philosopher David Livingstone Smith, an expert on this topic, describes dehumanization as a psychological response to social and political forces.  He affirms that we all have the psychological equipment, which under certain circumstances leads us down a path towards inhumane actions.

This state of affairs plays out time and time again in history…

From the English towards the Scots. Against indigenous people. Towards black people.  Against irish americans. Oppressing women. Incarcerating the mentally ill. Towards homosexuals. Against religious minorities and the Jews.

The latter looms large in our consciousness as being one of the most startling events in recent history. Specifically because this time around, dehumanization was developed as an articulated strategy within The Reich. Nazis promulgated the idea that the Jews possessed the natural features of humans but lacked their metaphysical essence. In other words, they looked like humans, but they were not “fully human.”  

The burden of economic injustice 

Don’t forget that the German people were desperate for economic recovery and equality within Europe. They had been downtrodden by the punitive 1919 Treaty of Versailles. They saw themselves as oppressed. They felt the burden of economic injustice. Dehumanizing the jews was in part, their way of making sense of it all. The Nazi’s beleived that the Jews were a threat and getting rid of these “parasites” would advance their recovery of power.

My perspective is that the German population became the psychological victims of dogmatic political forces that drove dehumanization. Soberingly, according to neuroscience, we all have the potential to be influenced in this manner.

Listening to women’s stories

I must add here that for the last couple of years I have been actively involved with an organization that provides compassionate care for woman who have “post-abortion syndrome,” which is an intense distress that has a lasting impact on mental health.   Also, I have spent  many hours listening to women tell stories of their abortions—how and why, and if they regret it now, sometimes even decades later. I am empathic and compassionate in all of these environments. Based on my experience, it is my belief that women are not empowered by abortion but rather victims of it. 

Sentient or insentient

While writing this article, interestingly I discovered that in June 2016, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled in favor of a dog named Juno, declaring that while animals can be legally considered property, they are still “sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, stress and fear.” Juno had been lawfully seized on probable cause of criminal neglect. I am in full support of this. Dogs are lovely creatures that should be protected by law.

However, in stark contrast, according to the Journal of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, “30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed.” More up-to-date estimations on the topic of “fetal sentience” state 18 weeks, 12-14 weeks and so on.

Is it now common culture to humanize our “fur babies” while we dehumanize our “fetuses”?

Regardless of the number of weeks assigned to “fetal sentience,” I am struck by the fact that in the state of Oregon a dog is considered sentient and should not be mistreated. However an unborn baby can be aborted beyond 27 weeks—an age at which a baby can survive outside the womb. In other words, in the state of Oregon dogs have more protection than unborn babies. Is it now common culture to humanize our “fur babies” whilst we dehumanize our fetuses? 

What a muddled mess!  

Language aimed to strip away human dignity

The footprint of dehumanization goes all the way back to ancient times and all over the world, fueled by language aimed to strip away human dignity and identity. “Jews like rats,” said Joseph Goebbels (Final Entries 1945). This debased rhetoric is deliberate and reprehensible. When dehumanization goes hand in hand with the perceived rights to land, people and property, the surprisingly repetitive collective narrative goes something like this: 

“This other group is not fully human like us. They may be a threat to us. Based on our superiority, we have the right to deal with them however we wish…”   

At least we might all agree on this

So, Meghan Markle was right: The loss of a baby is unbearable. The death of any human being is grievous.  

Furthermore, the degradation of people groups, in all of history, is lamentable. No one has the right to end the life of another human. Dehumanization is a response to social and political forces, which are now currently raging against the preservation of innocent human life.  

For those who do not share my perspective, at least we might all agree that it would be desirable to live in a world where unborn babies at least have the same protection as dogs in Oregon.