What's in a Name? - Why Our Definitions of Abortion Matter

Disclaimer: The following conversations are hypothetical. However they are based on viewpoints I have heard expressed by Latter-day Saints on both sides of the abortion issue. 

Latter-day Saint 1: “I consider myself politically pro-choice.”

Latter-day Saint 2: “Our doctrine teaches us of the sanctity of life. Abortion is contrary to the commandments of God.”

Latter-day Saint 1: “Five years ago I had an experience that opened my eyes. I know now that abortions are sometimes necessary. Besides, we also teach about agency. People should not be compelled to be pregnant by a law.”

Latter-day Saint 2: “But we have laws that tell us what to do all the time, like laws against murder. If abortion is killing, then shouldn’t we have a law against that?”

Latter-day Saint 1: “I find that very offensive. You’re saying that I killed one of my twins five years ago.”

Latter-day Saint 2: “Wait - what?” (Cue wondering: Did she have an elective abortion, or a miscarriage?)

If you haven’t noticed, this hypothetical conversation has a problem. Okay, it has a few problems, but a big one especially. Here’s another example of a conversation with the same issue.

Latter-day Saint 1: “I'm personally pro-life, but I think that laws that prohibit abortion are bad, because women can't get the care they need.”

Latter-day Saint 2: “But abortion isn't healthcare.” 

Latter-day Saint 1: “I had a friend that had an ectopic pregnancy. If she hadn't been able to get the treatment she needed, she would have died. Some pro-life laws are so strict that doctors can’t save a woman’s life because they are afraid of being prosecuted for an abortion. We need to allow abortions in some cases, or women will die.”

Latter-day Saint 2: “But we don't need any exceptions. Treatment for an ectopic pregnancy isn't the same thing as an abortion. And an abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother.”

Latter-day Saint 1: “Wait - what??”

What do these two conversations have in common?

The participants are not using the same definition of abortion.

In the case of the first conversation, we don't know if Latter-Day Saint 1 was referring to an “elective abortion,” a miscarriage, or maybe even treatment for a miscarriage!

In the second conversation, Latter Day Saint 2 is making the claim that treatment for ectopic pregnancy or other medical actions needed to save a woman's life (which result in the death of the fetus) do not count as an abortion, because the intent of the action is different than intentionally killing. 

Where Does the Confusion Come From?

In my experience, most pro-lifers think of the definition of abortion as fairly straightforward, and in some ways, they’re right. However, we would be remiss if we didn’t acknowledge that a miscarriage, otherwise known as “the spontaneous loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy” can also be referred to as a “spontaneous abortion,” as opposed to an “induced abortion,” which is “a procedure to end a pregnancy.” 

Another complication is that there are rare scenarios in which pregnancy puts a woman’s life in jeopardy. For example, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy (when the fertilized egg implants outside of the uterus), the embryo cannot properly grow and develop, and the mother may die if she doesn’t receive treatment (either by removal of the fallopian tube, where the embryo has implanted, or by use of methotrexate, which will kill the developing embryo). 

Do either of these procedures constitute an “abortion?” Well, it depends on who you ask! For those who might be interested, Secular Pro-Life has an excellent survey in which they ask participants what they believe constitutes an abortion. 

The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) summarized this confusion in their Glossary of Medical Terms for Life-Affirming Medical Professionals with the statement, “[abortion] is a vague term with a multitude of definitions depending on the context in which it is being used. [It] also has the potential to be conflated with miscarriage and is often distressing for patients in this scenario.”

The Pro-Life Perspective

The pro-life movement argues that the intentional killing of an embryo or fetus is wrong. A miscarriage, or the removal of the deceased baby thereafter, is not the same thing as intentionally taking the life of the fetus.

When discussing scenarios in which pregnancy puts a mother’s life in danger, most pro-lifers point out that there is a distinction between a procedure which is done in order to save a woman’s life and a procedure which is done purely to kill the fetus. In addition, there are many scenarios in which the lives of both can adequately be respected. For example, in the case of a woman in the third trimester of pregnancy whose life is in danger due to her pregnancy, an early delivery (whether by induction or a cesarean section) would be life-affirming for the fetus as well as the mother. 

But what about cases in which a fetus cannot yet survive outside of the womb, but continuing the pregnancy could put the woman’s life in jeopardy? Many pro-lifers would argue that because the intention of the procedure (whether that procedure involves a mother receiving chemotherapy, or preterm delivery of the fetus) is to save the woman’s life rather than deliberately killing the fetus, then these scenarios do not qualify as an “abortion.” Live Action has an excellent video in which they explain this perspective. 

AAPLOG suggests that the term “intentional feticide” should be used in place of this definition of abortion, and offers a definition: 

Any drug, device or procedure used to ensure the death of the preborn human being before, during or in the process of separation of the mother and her embryo or fetus. Can further clarify by adding the means used to affect the death:

Intentional feticide by chemical agent

Intentional feticide by vacuum disruption

- Intentional feticide by dismemberment

- Intentional feticide by lethal injection

- Intentional feticide by labor induction

To be clear, I know of some pro-lifers who would argue that procedures to save the life of the mother would still constitute an “abortion,” even if they were ethically right to perform. Knowing how convoluted the definition of abortion can be among pro-lifers, consider how much more difficult it is for the layperson, who is besieged by both pro-lifers and pro-choicers who all have their own definition of abortion. 

Intentional Confusion?

Some of the confusion regarding what an abortion is can be attributed to those who intentionally conflate abortion with miscarriage by making the erroneous argument that pro-lifers might make miscarriage or treatment for miscarriage illegal. Whether purposefully or not, this idea entirely ignores and misunderstands the intent of pro-lifers, which is that the intentional killing of an embryo or fetus is wrong, and that preborn children deserve the same human rights as you or me. To be clear; I know of NO pro-life figure or group that wants to make miscarriage, (i.e. “the spontaneous loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy”) illegal OR who advocates against removal of the fetus following a miscarriage.

In addition to conflating abortion with miscarriage, another point of confusion enters when a pregnant woman’s life is in jeopardy, and there is little to no distinction made between the intention of killing the fetus and the intention of saving the mother’s life. Sadly, even the traditional medical institutions seem bent on blurring the lines on what an abortion is doing and why. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), in their Guide to Language and Abortion, takes issue with the term “elective abortion,” stating that: 

The unnecessary descriptor of “elective” can be used to differentiate between reasons for abortion care and diminish the value of the abortion care that many patients need. The motivation behind the decision to get an abortion should not be judged as “elective” or “not elective” by an external party.

In other words, ACOG believes there should be no distinction between a procedure done to save a woman’s life and a procedure done in order to intentionally kill the developing embryo or fetus. This conflation is a major reason why a common definition of abortion is elusive. It also serves to show that the confusion is caused (at least in part) by a lack of regard for the lives of the unborn.

What Are the Implications?

Our definitions of abortion have enormous implications on our personal conversations as well as law and policy. As exhibited in the hypothetical conversations above, disparate definitions of abortion can inhibit the conversation from moving in a productive direction. 

Even more concerning is the fact that this ambiguity of definitions can impact laws and the interpretation of laws. As an example, “strict” abortion laws have created concern, with some arguing that these laws do not spell out their exceptions to abortion in a way which allows for timely treatment of women experiencing medical complications. On the other hand, many pro-lifers may argue that laws protecting the unborn need no “exceptions” at all, because their definition of abortion holds that a treatment done in order to save the life of the mother (even if that treatment involves the tragic death of the baby) does NOT constitute an abortion.* This kind of law, however, would only be appropriate if all parties shared the same definition of abortion. 

*To clarify; I know of NO states that have enacted pro-life laws that do not include exceptions for the life of the mother. Further, state laws include a “definitions” section where terms like abortion are defined. Still, that hasn’t stopped many from claiming that these laws do not spell out the exceptions well enough. Closely examining the validity of such claims is a subject for another day. 

So What Can We Do? 

Unfortunately, it’s doubtful that the ambiguity surrounding the word “abortion” is going to end anytime soon. Although I’m all for using the term “intentional feticide” in place of “abortion” in politics, policy, and daily life, I doubt that the term is going to be caught by the mainstream, at least for a while. 

So what can we do? We clarify our meaning in our personal conversations and do what we can to ensure there is clarity in policy. 

This might mean outright asking (and listening!) for our conversation partner’s definition of abortion. It also means sharing the reality of what laws actually say regarding abortion, and not allowing others to perpetuate falsehoods.

Even if we can’t come to a consensus on what abortion means, taking these steps will allow us to move forward in our conversations and continue to create a culture that respects life. 

What did you think of this article? Comment your thoughts below and share this article on social media!