On Thursday, Nov. 3, 2016, members of the organization Pro Life on Campus spent their second day comparing abortions to famous genocides in front of hundreds of VCU students. The comparisons, blatantly displayed on tall, billboard-like signs, featured images of what were claimed to be aborted fetuses, positioned next to images of young children killed during horrific events like the Holocaust.
As a pro-choice, 20-year-old college female who was not particularly happy with such a grotesque display triggering her fellow VCU Rams, I decided to interview one of the Pro Life on Campus organizers and figure out exactly what both the advocates and the organization are all about.
I spoke with Maggie Eggar, Pro Life on Campus’ Project Director. She is a young, white female and energetically agreed to be recorded. I did not discuss my own views with her as I did not wish to debate, but rather simply try to understand her seemingly radical ideals.
After a bit of small talk about the VCU student body’s reaction to the organization’s presence on campus (she described the first day’s behavior as “immature” and “disrespectful,” but said the second day’s protests were “much more discussion friendly”), we moved on to the nitty-gritty.
While I tried to stay as non-biased as possible in talking with her, I did press some of the more controversial issues surrounding pro-lifers. Initially, I asked Egger why she thought that, to many people, a fetus is vastly different from a baby. Her response was that it had to do with dehumanization. Essentially, she said, the terms “clump of cells” and “products of conception” result from a baby “being unwanted” and that, when we are celebrating a woman’s pregnancy, we do not call it a “products of consumption shower.” For that reason, therefore, she said, “Abortion is murder. There really is no difference between an unborn and born child.”
Realizing then and there that it was probably my only opportunity to ask my favorite ethical question surrounding the issue, I prompted, “You are in a science lab that has caught on fire and is burning down. To your left is a baby in a high chair. To the right of you is a petri dish filled with the cells of an unborn baby. You can only save one. Which do you choose?”
She chuckled. Ms. Egger’s response did not surprise me: “Whenever I am asked questions like that, I realize that it’s supposed to catch me. But, in reality, it shouldn’t matter which one I choose because the choice doesn’t remove the humanity from either one, as they are both valuable.”
When further prompted as to how an unborn child can even begin to compare to a born one, she said, “Science tells us what the problems are, and philosophy tells us if they’re valuable. People can choose to not believe the science; we’ve done that throughout history.”
In discussing a person’s inherent value, I next asked how the organization as a whole feels about abortion in cases of rape or incest. Egger explained that, as a society, great strides need to be made to do more for women who are victims of rape while simultaneously punishing their rapist. However, she noted, “Abortion after rape does not punish the rapist, but rather an innocent life.” Therefore, essentially saying (but without really saying it), that the Pro Life on Campus organization does not think that abortion is an appropriate action to take after getting pregnant by a rapist.
Since I caught her as the group was packing up, we were only able to speak for a short time. However, our discussion, although not lengthy, was enough time to reaffirm an already pre-existing notion; while being “pro-life” is certainly pro-life of a baby, it is not pro-woman. Instead, the movement convinces itself into believing that it is. Egger assured me that women were fairly represented within the group, as their demographic is “quite diverse.” She even went so far as to explain that there are women who currently work within the organization that have had an abortion and strongly advocate against it. While I am a strong advocate for validity when it comes to feelings, I cannot help but think, both from our conversation and in simply observing the environment that the group created on campus, that they are very good at what they do. By that, I mean that they are skilled in twisting their propaganda in a way that makes it convincing. Yet, the mere fact that they do not value a women’s safety (albeit physical or mental health) over that of an unborn child’s confirms my speculations.
No matter what your views on the issue of pro-choice vs. pro-life are, please educate yourselves before choosing a position. There are too many tactics (propaganda, fear-mongering, etc.) that prey on the assurance people will not take the initiative to do their own outside research and learn for themselves. The ability to withstand such strategies, therefore, is a valuable skill to have, especially in today’s propaganda-hungry world.