You’re entitled to your opinions; however, be factual

It’s common knowledge at this point that the “pro-life versus prochoice” debate happens in the Op-Ed section of The Record as an annual occurrence.

When it comes to the already divisive topic of abortions at a college based on Catholic Benedictine values like CSB+SJU, it seems the lines are drawn in the sand. If recent housing fiascos are any indication, you stand a better chance of being approved to live off-campus than convincing someone to stray from their beliefs on the subject.

Keeping that in mind, there’s plenty to be said about the related opinion pieces from the last two weeks that have nothing to do with trying to radically change anyone’s minds, but everything to do with creating factual, constructive discourse—and checking your privilege.

The opinion last week titled “All life is sacred; we do not pick and choose” mentioned a problematic piece of research that has been touted as a critical talking point for the prolife argument since it was published in 2018. This survey states that “96% of biologists affirmed that life begins at fertilization.”

Unlike last week’s opinion suggests, this survey was not conducted by the National Library of Medicine. The NLM’s online database is simply a library that compiles research on health-related topics. The studies included in it are only as unbiased and credible as their methods and authors are. Steven Andrew Jacobs is the actual creator of this survey, which was part of his graduate school research on comparative human development at the University of Chicago.

The first step of this research involved a survey by Jacobs on a public forum that asked who Americans would trust the most to comment on when human life begins. Most of the 2,979 respondents said they believed biologists were most qualified to deliver a verdict.

From there, Jacobs sent over 62,000 biologists a separate survey on when human life biologically begins, and the 5,337 out of 5,577 individuals who chose to respond is where 96% comes from. Philosopher of Biology Sahotra Sarkar summed it up best in an article for The Conversation when he said, “this result is not a proper survey method and does not carry any statistical or scientific weight.

It is like asking 100 people about their favorite sport, finding out that only the 37 football fans bothered to answer, and declaring that 100% of Americans love football.”

Jacobs is notoriously pro-life, leading to accusations that the survey was biased and completed with a motive. He also faced criticism for deliberately surveying professionals that Americans would be most likely to trust to boost the “credibility” of his results. His original advisor eventually dropped his project and referred Jacobs to the ethics committee of his grad school program due to these objections. Respondents on the survey also gave lengthy feedback about the study, saying the questions were misleading, that they believed abortion was not a debate that could be solved by biology and the issue is best left to personal ethics and philosophy. Jacobs has repeatedly brushed these concerns off as nothing but pushback from pro-choice individuals and not admitted what they actually are: genuine issues with the project’s integrity.

In addition to this, the use of extreme dialogue in this opinion to describe an abortion of a “fully developed infant” carries no source to back it up. Any amount of research on the subject would reveal there are zero concrete scenarios that warrant this description when you’re referring to a “fully developed” or “40-week-old” fetus.

Abortions after 21 weeks account for around 1% of abortions, and the data on them week-by-week is scarce. Much of what we do know is likely to be left to anecdotal evidence. However, medical experts affirm that these procedures are incredibly rare, difficult to obtain and handled very specifically.

If we want to refer deliberately to the last few weeks of gestation, Dr. Jen Gunter, OBGYN told Live Science that in any situation after 38-39 weeks where a fetus will clearly not survive after birth, a modified abortion is not an option. Healthcare providers induce labor early, and it is not called a late/full term abortion (which, it’s important to note, has never been a medically recognized term), but rather simply a delivery.

It is incredibly important to make every effort to do your research when you’re dealing with a polarizing subject like abortion.

You should stick to your personal beliefs, but with the knowledge that you do so to the most informed extent. That includes educating yourself on perspectives other than your own, respecting the views (and criticism) of others and looking critically into the information you consume.

You should be checking your sources in academic work, and it applies here too. We cannot have anything close to a constructive conversation about abortion if we are misusing sources that do not hold any ethical, scientific or logical weight.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, using the word “genocide” to describe people obtaining abortions is both laughably unfounded and horrifically disrespectful.

The definition of genocide is “the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.” Abortion absolutely does not fit in this description.

As the opinion titled “We must protect the sanctity of human life in Gaza” in the April 11 issue of The Record aptly pointed out, what is happening in Gaza right now IS genocide. Comparing it to abortion is not only factually inaccurate but a slap in the face to the Palestinian people and what they have suffered through the Israeli occupation.

No matter how you feel about abortion, I seriously encourage you to find another word to describe it other than “genocide.”

No one is contesting the fact that clubs and individuals on campus can advocate for whatever issue they like. However, you should recognize the incredible amount of privilege it takes to be able to focus your efforts on something that you personally believe is “closer to home.” It is a luxury that not everyone can afford.