One of the most popular proabort slogans centers on bodily autonomy. Here's one way of putting it:
Abortion as a right having to do with ownership and control of one's body...If women have rights over their own bodies, then they have rights not to have their bodies used by others against their will. The state has no right to force someone to donate use of her body to another person, even if that person is in extreme need.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-family/#3.1
1. In its bumper sticker version, the slogan is mindless. Last time I checked, pregnancy naturally requires physical contact between a man and a woman. So how did she become pregnant in the first place if she was operating with a hands-off-my-body policy? Indeed, there's more to procreation than the use of hands.
2. I'd add that when men are drafted to fight wars, conscription forces them to donate the use of their bodies against their will. So the offending experience is hardly unique to women.
3. What's the general, underlying principle? Suppose we compare it to private property rights. Let's say no one has a right to come onto my property or enter my house without my permission. That's criminal trespassing. Suppose I come home and find a burglar in my house. I have a right to shoot him because he's a life-threatening trespasser
4. Now let's modify the example. Suppose I invite someone over. They are now in my space. Once they cross the threshold, do I have a right to kill them because they happen to be in my house? Yet if they are there at my invitation, then surely I don't have a right to kill them, if though they are on my property.
By the same token, pregnancy (except in case of rape) is the predictable consequence of sexual intercourse. So sexual intercourse carries with it an implicit invitation to become pregnant. Even if you use contraceptives, there's still the "risk" of pregnancy.
So killing a baby in the womb is like killing a house guest rather than a house burglar. The guest is there by invitation of the homeowner.
Moreover, the general duration of the visit is known in advance. About 9 months gestation. So it's not like the guess overstayed their welcome.
5. But what about someone who wasn't invited. Not everyone falls into the category of a house burglar. Suppose I have a fence or wall around my property with a no trespassing sign. Suppose, overcome by innocent curiosity, a grade-school age boy climbs over the fence. Technically, he's a trespasser. I didn't give him permission to come on my property. Does that give my the right to shoot him?
6. Likewise, suppose my brother and I don't get along. We're both in our twenties or thirties. We lead separate lives. We rarely speak to each other.
One day I come home and find my estranged brother in my living room. I didn't invite him. I don't want to see him. Does that give me a right to shoot him on the spot?
Even if he's technically trespassing, a brother isn't equivalent to a house burglar. The nature of the relationship makes a difference in terms of what's morally licit or illicit in that situation. Ownership by itself is not sufficient warrant.
I don't know why he's there. Maybe he needs me to do him a favor. Or maybe he wants to patch things up between us. Make a fresh start.
Even if he's a junkie who's there to steal my stuff and pawn it to support his drug habit, while that gives me the right to evict him, does that give me the right to kill him?
If he attacks my wife or kids, that gives me a right to kill him (if necessary), but that's how extreme the provocation would have to be.
7. Proaborts use distancing language like "the woman" rather than "the mother". By the same token, the house-burglar, the brother, and the grade-school age boy are all males, but there are morally relevant differences which a generic category fails to capture and distinguish.
On a related note, not directly addressing "hands off my body", though continuing with the "property" analogy:
ReplyDeleteAll things equal, if someone is on my property, and they injure themselves, am I not responsible or liable for their injury?
If an innocent person is on my property, if I kick them off my property knowing full well that spells certain death for them, am I not responsible or liable for their death? For example, I could be a safehouse for someone hiding from a hitman. I could be a US embassy in a hostile foreign land. Indeed, most secular progressives argue for sanctuary cities.
If someone leaves a baby at my doorstep with a note begging that I take care of the baby, though taking care of a baby would be a severe imposition on my life, is it morally licit for me to simply leave the baby outside to be exposed to the elements and die? Not my problem!
DeleteIf not, then how much more so is the case of an actual parent and their own child?
I wonder what Pharaoh's daughter (in Exodus) would say to leftist abortionists today (cf. Mt 11:20-24).
DeleteOf course, if it's morally licit for women to abort their child on the grounds that it's her body, that she can do whatever she likes with her body, then that implies the biological father of the child has no responsibility over the mother or her child.
DeleteIn that case, then why couldn't the same principle apply in the realm of child support? Perhaps fathers shouldn't ever be required to pay child support!
If the baby is part of the woman's body, then does the woman have two heads, four arms, four legs, and either two vaginas or a vagina and a penis? If the latter, then in what sense is she a woman?
DeleteI suppose the woman would say she'll do whatever she likes while the baby's inside *her* body. But don't you just know that if she has the baby she won't hang about in seeking the father's input. It'll soon become a team effort!
DeleteI guess she wants all the privileges (however the cookie crumbles), but none of the responsibilities or sacrifices. :(
DeleteGood points.
ReplyDeleteI find it fascinating that pro-abortion arguments are so weak to the point of utter incoherence. Even more philosophical arguments, such as the denial of personhood argument (which I find to be ad hoc and ultimately weak), are either a tacit or explicit admission of the biological fact that at fertilisation a human being exists with its own unique combination of genetic material.
The 'My body, my choice!' crowd need an anatomy lesson. There is a separate human being developing inside *yet distinct from* your own body, and a truly civilised society protects the human rights of others, particularly those dependent on us for their development, growth and well-being.
Let's take the number one emotive example: rape. While pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely rare in comparison to unwanted pregnancies in general, these cases do arise and they are very forceful and prima facie persuasive. Here we have an actual violation of a woman's body and her rights. Still, it seems clear that one horrendous and despicable act does not warrant a further horrendous and despicable act. Two wrongs do not make a right. Remember, this is not punishing the perpetrator but an innocent, so it is not justice in any sense. Justice here would be twofold: punishing the rapist and sparing the life of the innocent human being in the womb. Questions of whether the mother can look the baby in the eyes and live with he/she being the offspring of a vile piece of filth must remain secondary, and if the mother has to offer her baby up for adoption then that at least would be understandable. But that is a logically and morally separate question.
ReplyDeletePro-abortionists like to frame the debate in terms of a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body. But the issue is nowhere near as straightforward as they would like it to be. A woman can't issue a mental command to her body which results in a miscarriage. If she wants to end a pregnancy then she has to enlist the help of a third party. The third party will either carry out an invasive medical procedure or supply a powerful drug that has the same effect. There is nothing straightforward or "hands off" about it.
ReplyDelete