In considering the rights of women to terminate a pregnancy, we often juxtapose two viewpoints; Either women are entitled to the absolute rights to control of their bodies, or fetuses are people and thus have human rights. It is firstly and most primarily argued by those supporting abortion (the pro-choice side) that women are not objects or inferiors, but are persons and of equal value to men, and that subsequently they (women) should possess the inalienable right to command of what they do with their bodies, be it birth control or aborting the fetus to terminate the pregnancy. In stark contrast, those arguing against (the pro-life side) state that regardless of the woman’s desires, the fetus possesses equivalent value to an existing human life, and that to abort it would thus be tantamount to first degree murder. Though both sides are guilty of flaws in their rhetoric, my goal here is to explore what I have found to be a hypocrisy within a common pro-choice argument that the fetus, when still largely undeveloped, is not in fact a person and thus cannot have rights. My contention is that many pro-choice advocates are also liberal-minded individuals who will claim to be advocates of clean, sustainable environmental policy, the basis of which is in fact centered around the rights of future persons who do not yet exist, and thus are in a similar legal and moral predicament to fetuses. Thus, we see a hypocrisy, in that by embracing pro-choice, they deny the right of a future person at a present person’s expense, while in embracing sustainable environmental policy, they argue for the rights of a future person at present day expense of opportunity.

Thus, let us begin by justifying my point that there is often overlap between pro-choice sentiment and advocating for clean environmental initiatives. Look no further than at today’s Democratic party. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Barbara Boxer are just a handful of names of people who have claimed to both support women’s right to choose termination of pregnancy and a safer environmental policy for posterity’s sake. There can be no doubt that on the liberal side of American politics, both of these are issues that are firmly stood for. Most of the people from the left will be both pro choice and pro environmental sustainability, not even realizing that there is this hypocrisy present in how they regard the rights of posterity. The major discrepancy is that regardless of political standing, it seems that no side has attempted to divine what it means to be a person, and how to assign rights based on personhood. It is clear of course that future generations who will benefit from clean environmental policy now are not yet people, given that they do not yet exist. Despite this, we have arguments which afford them the right to a cleaner world. It is our imperative duty, many would argue, to provide them a good world to inherit, free of our debts and sins, save any accumulated in correlation with benefits that posterity receives. On the other hand, it can be well argued that fetuses are not yet a fully formed human life, and thus fetuses are not yet persons. They are not alive as developed human beings yet, and have no way of soliciting representatives to advocate for their interests, nor are they even capable of deciding what their interests are given their state of social nonexistence. Like those future generations who will benefit from a cleaner environmental policy, fetuses are merely potential persons. They are people who will exist. They will come into being, and become the inheritors of the earth. However, by being potential persons, they regardless are still not yet persons. Thus, it is up to existing persons to evaluate whether or not potential persons have rights. That being said, how is it that we can afford rights or obligations to one set of potential persons, yet not another? If anything, one might be able to contend that fetuses possess greater personhood than any of those potential persons in environmental policy, yet many of a liberal minded ideology will deny rights to the fetus and embrace rights for future generations to inhabit the earth. In the face of such hypocrisy, there must be some sort of moral solution to the problem.

Philosopher Annette Baier contends that a solution is to evaluate whether these future persons are afforded obligations on account that they will have rights or if they have rights now. Depending on this, she says, what they have a right to will be different. Consider this for a moment. If they are said to have rights now, then it is clear that a right to life is likely to appear, and thus abortions might very well be wrong. However, if it is that they will have rights, rather than them having rights in the present, then clearly the rights do not apply to this very moment, and would instead entail some sort of future right to life or prosperity. In the event of the latter being true, then both environmentalism and abortion can be equally justified, as having rights in future would entail something external, such as a sustainable world. It would not, however, entail rights in the present, such as life. In this way, Baier’s contention is a valid solution to the observed hypocrisy.

Another argument which could justify the current state of abortion vs environmental sustainability is the idea of fair legal treatment to people of all socioeconomic backgrounds. Mark Graber holds that anti-abortion policies are in fact not about a pro-life clause, but to oppress those of lower socioeconomic status. According to Graber, “The central premise of equal choice is simple. No state may make abortion policies that discriminate against poor persons or persons of color.” What this boils down to is that anti-abortion policies unfairly discriminate against those of less means because with limited means it is already difficult enough to get by without also bringing a new child into the world. With no option for terminating the pregnancy, and being forced to carry the child to term, the woman will be left having to pay out money (especially if uninsured) for hospital fees, and then will have to support the child while already struggling. The only options of escape remaining at this point are illegal, back door abortions which are life risking to the child and mother, or else putting another child into an already overcrowded foster care system. Graber holds that anti-abortion policies, therefore, are simply policies that will proliferate poverty and make it more miserable to live under.

In following the socioeconomic argument, we discern its intergenerational validity in the face of both environmentalism and right to abortion. In the case of abortion, there is allowance from its legality for a person to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and then attempt to better their financial and social status, thus benefiting future generations of their lineage, or in other words their children. On a larger scale, with many people doing this, it helps to reduce the amount and extremity of poverty in future generations, leading to a more prosperous population. In the case of environmentalism, we find that a more sustainable environment creates a more livable world for future generations as well. This argument thus validates both abortion and environmentalism so long as we can agree that there is some sort of obligation to better the lives of posterity.

The weakness to the socioeconomic argument is its contingency on our agreement of an obligation to future generations. Without this agreement, the argument falls apart. If there is no obligation to future generations, then why is there a need for us to better the socioeconomic circumstances that people will eventually be born into? There’s no need to better circumstances of the present in the hopes of bettering the world of the future if we have no obligation to do so. Ironically, however, the counter to the socioeconomic argument, which states that we do not have an obligation to future generations, is also able to justify both abortion rights and environmentalism.

This argument states that it is actually within our interest, here in the present, to support both abortion and a sustainable environment. It is not something to be considered for the benefit of future generations, but for the sake of current ones. First consider environmentalist Paul Hawkens, who claims, “The environment is not a minor factor of production but rather ‘is an envelope containing, provisioning, and sustaining the entire economy.’” His claim is essentially that the economy of the United States (and all other nations) is incredibly inefficient. It is the equivalent of liquidating our capital and calling it profit. Hawkens claim is that by embracing environmental sustainability, we will not only maximize what we get out of our natural resources, but we will turn the earth itself into a machine that replenishes itself and continues to funnel profit into the pockets of those who make it sustainable to begin with. Thus, sustainability is actually not priority for the socioeconomic status of future generations, but is priority for the economic profit of present generations. The more sustainable the environment, the more money that we will both save and make.

Hawkens argument can be joined by the idea that abortion is also justified by obligation not to the benefit of posterity, but to present day persons. To write her book, The Healing Choice, Dana Dovitch interviewed women about what they felt during times of unplanned pregnancy. She recounts her experience: “When we asked...time and time again we were met with looks of surprise... They then went on to list nearly identical emotional experiences: anger, guilt, shame, self-judgment, fear and depression.” The book is written to help women heal from the experience of unwanted pregnancy and the subsequent abortion by assuring them that they made the right choice for themselves, and to stand tall for doing what is right. In doing so, it stresses the obligation to self, and to no one else. It was her right to herself, not to her family, lover, or potential children.

In combining these two arguments, we create an argument which, despite rejecting the notion of obligation to posterity, still justifies both abortion and environmental sustainability. It was Thomas Jefferson who said, “I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right,” stating quite clearly that the present generation in fact does have the right to do as it pleases with the world in order to maximize profit, pleasure, and self fulfillment. Essentially, the earth does not belong to the past, and the current generation has the right to use its resources for benefit and for profit. Well, according to our previous arguments, having a sustainable environment and having the right to abortion will reap the most profit (material or spiritual), pleasure, and self fulfillment. People will be the best off, and will have best used the resources that were available to them. Thus, it is the present generation’s right to do as it pleases which justifies why the environment should be preserved as well as why pro-choice is a valid place to stand. This argument is the one which best negates the hypocrisy between the two.

In exploring these ideas, we have come to see that they need not necessarily be juxtaposed against one another, but rather can function in tandem. Furthermore, the major issue of hypocrisy seems to be easily solved by looking at a standpoint of logic. Economically, it simply isn’t in our best interest to oppose the policies of pro-choice and sustainable environmentalism. This is not about the future interests of posterity, but the present interests of the current occupants of the world. Most people, after all, seem to be able to act within their own self interest.

In closing, we must acknowledge that yes, there is a hypocrisy between the arguments of environmentalism and abortion. We can also acknowledge, however, that there are counters to this, and that the hypocrisy, depending on one’s point of view, can be negated. It’s the type of nuanced debate wherein it depends on one’s point of view more than any sort of universal logic or unitary morality shared between peoples. Only when people can agree on how to look at things and what standards to use can we come to a proper solution.