A fundamental question lies at the heart of the abortion debate as to whether the government should force citizens to give birth without their consent.
Proponents of forced birth policies often argue that life begins at conception, granting the fetus the same rights as a fully formed human being. This perspective, however, fails to acknowledge the complexities of human biology, the sanctity of bodily autonomy, and the moral responsibilities of society. In this article, we will challenge the intellectual consistency of forced birth policies and expose the blatant dishonesty regarding this issue.
Just ask any parent if they were ever trapped in a burning building, would they save their fertilized egg or their three-year-old?
At the core of the “pro-life” movement lies the belief that an embryo is a person with the same rights as any other human being. While a fertilized egg has the potential for human life, it is not yet a fully developed human. Just ask any parent if they were ever trapped in a burning building, would they save their fertilized egg or their three-year-old? It is pretty clear that most parents would choose to save their three-year-old if forced to make that choice.
Equating an embryo with a born person undermines the fundamental right of bodily autonomy, which recognizes that individuals born under the Constitution should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies.
Suppose that intellectual honesty plays a significant role in the ongoing abortion debate. It would help individuals better distinguish and appreciate the complexities involved with abortion and perhaps avoid oversimplifying the positions of others.
Intellectual honesty fosters an environment where both sides can engage in meaningful conversations without resorting to strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, or other fallacious reasoning. Furthermore, intellectual honesty allows individuals to examine their beliefs and consider alternative perspectives critically; it also requires a commitment to accurately and fairly presenting facts.
Whenever any pro-life advocate claims that abortion is the same as murder, they are, more often than not, oversimplifying the positions of others, attempting to strawman the discussion, and not being intellectually honest.
Moreover, the very fact that Republican-led legislators across the country remain laser-focused on restricting access to reproductive healthcare or, in most cases, seeking to outlaw abortion altogether when “murder” is already a crime exposes this blatant hypocrisy.
Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of one human being by another, yet women are not charged with murder for having an abortion because terminating a pregnancy is fundamentally different and not always a matter of personal control. Thus, states attempting to pass legislation to criminalize doctors who perform abortions or the patients receiving them express a form of hypocritical redundancy since “murder” is already illegal across the nation.
Also, we must consider that it would naturally follow that miscarriages will become a new form of negligent homicide because the woman was not careful enough to avoid killing the child.
For example, police arrested Brittany Watts on charges of abusing a corpse when she suffered a miscarriage. Under Ohio state law that punishes those who treat a human corpse in a “way that the person knows would outrage reasonable “family” or “community sensibilities.” Brittany was charged with a fifth-degree felony charge punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $2,500 because her nurse reported her miscarriage, which took place in a public restroom, to the police.
Thankfully, an Ohio grand jury decided on Jan. 11 that Watts would not be indicted. Only because it was determined that she did not violate the Ohio criminal statute, however, these situations will most likely become the new norm if Republican-led legislatures are allowed to continue to regard women as property or somehow in control of naturally occurring events related to each pregnancy.
Anti-choice advocates often claim that late-term abortions are the primary rationale for state-wide restrictions of reproductive health access across the board when roughly 1 percent of late-term abortions take place due to unforeseen medical complications.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Abortion Surveillance System, 2020.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2020, abortions occurring after 21 weeks made up roughly 1 percent of reported cases. However, conservatives routinely deny the ability of women and their doctors the freedom to determine the inherent risk involved with each pregnancy.
Kate Cox, a 31-year-old married woman and mother of two children, learned 20 weeks into her pregnancy that her baby had a condition called trisomy 18, an extra chromosome that made it likely the baby would die in utero or shortly after birth, according to an article in the Associated Press by Geoff Mulvihill, 2023. She successfully sued the state of Texas for an abortion, only to have the Texas Supreme Court step in and deny the lower court’s ruling. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton argued that Cox’s life was not yet “sufficiently endangered” to warrant any relief.
At the time of this article, neither Paxton nor the Texas Supreme Court are medical doctors with specific knowledge about prenatal care. This situation strongly suggests that the health and welfare of Mrs. Cox, the mother, was not the primary concern of courts regarding the adverse partisan ruling but about Texas law controlling women’s bodies as a form of property.
Considering these points, we begin to see the apparent flaws in the pro-life argument, so we will look at a few other intellectually dishonest issues.
The Sanctity of Life…
Pro-life supporters generally claim that human life is sacred from the moment of conception and that every life has intrinsic value, regardless of the circumstances in which it is conceived.
However, the concept of the sanctity of life does not end after birth since every individual has the right to life, health, and well-being. Nonetheless, anti-choice advocates typically support policies restricting healthcare and sexual education, prohibiting birth-control measures believed to be causing abortions, and reducing food programs for American children in need.
The concept of life’s sanctity never really seems to extend beyond the issue of birth since other aspects of human life, such as healthcare, capital punishment, food programs, or the general needs of vulnerable populations, are frequently disregarded.
Forced birth revolves around the notion that life begins at conception, making every fetus deserving of the right to life., However, this perspective falls short when considering the sanctity of life beyond birth. Advocates of forced birth often overlook the importance of ensuring the well-being of children and adults in the here and now.
An intellectually consistent ‘pro-life’ position must always encompass more than just opposition to abortion, including support for policies and programs that promote the well-being of all individuals within a society.
Along these lines, the anti-abortionists are being intellectually dishonest because if life is genuinely valued, one would, in good conscience, not oppose the resources and support a person requires to sustain life beyond the point of conception.
An intellectually consistent “pro-life” position must always encompass more than just opposition to abortion, including support for policies and programs that promote the well-being of all individuals within a society. This remains a brazen form of intellectual dishonesty for individuals who support state-sanctioned forced birth agendas but do not ascribe to a broader social welfare outreach when it comes to policy.
Bodily Autonomy, Whose?
Another crucial yet often disregarded argument is the importance of bodily autonomy, which pro-life advocates often ignore. As a general rule, “No person has the right to use another person’s body without their consent,” and pregnancy should in no way change this fundamental right.
Advocates of forced birth argue that a woman’s bodily autonomy is secondary to the fetus’s right to life. However, this perspective dismisses the importance of consent and control over one’s own body, effectively undermining the rights of individuals who happen to find themselves pregnant.
The principle of bodily autonomy is essential to individual rights and ethics. In general, it is considered immoral to force someone to undergo a medical procedure or donate an organ without their consent, even if it could save someone else’s life. Respecting a person’s right to make decisions about their own body remains a fundamental aspect of respecting their autonomy and dignity as an individual.
Respecting a person’s autonomy and their ability to make decisions about their own body and life is an essential aspect of honoring the sanctity of life. A person’s autonomy allows them to make choices that align with their beliefs, values, and circumstances.
So, anti-choice arguments may have logically consistent arguments for themselves. But, anti-choice arguments have, in no way, presented an ethical or legal rationale as to why the state must force others who don’t share such beliefs, values, or circumstances to remain pregnant.
In situations where someone is facing a difficult choice, such as whether to have an abortion, it is important to respect that individual’s autonomy by allowing them to make the decision they believe is best for their circumstances. While differing voices and opinions can provide context and perspective, ultimately, the decision should rest with the person directly affected by the choice.
In this sense, a more sanctifying action would be respecting the individual’s autonomy rather than prioritizing the different voices that may oppose their decision. By supporting a person’s autonomy, we acknowledge their inherent worth and dignity and empower them to take control of their own life.
Moral Responsibility
Forced birth hinges on the belief that society has a moral responsibility to protect the unborn. While much agreement exists on this particular point, as mentioned before, this responsibility should extend far beyond the womb. Prioritizing fetal rights over the rights and needs of those who are already born, proponents of forced birth ignore the pressing economic needs of vulnerable populations.
A moral and intellectually honest position understands that a responsible society should support social programs and resources that address systemic inequalities and provide opportunities for all individuals to thrive. Forced birth advocates often disregard this weakness in their argument against abortion based on various “moral” grounds.
Forced birth advocates argue that the government should enforce laws that protect the unborn. However, this perspective ignores the fundamental principles of a secular society, which should prioritize the rule of law and protect individual rights over enforcing religious views. Individual rights are required to do what others may consider unethical or not in strict adherence to social norms.
The government should not remove a person’s bodily autonomy or enforce particular moral or religious beliefs. Instead, it should focus on upholding the values of equality, justice, and personal freedom.
Bodily autonomy is the fundamental right of individuals to make decisions about their own bodies.
Forced birth dismisses the impact of forced childbirth on social and fiscal resources. By mandating that every pregnancy results in a new child, society’s resources are strained, negatively affecting the quality of life for all. A more balanced approach would consider the long-term implications of a growing population on education, healthcare, and social welfare systems, prioritizing the well-being of both the unborn and the born.
As a result, the concept of forced birth falls short of addressing the complexities of the abortion debate. By prioritizing the rights of the unborn over the rights and needs of the pregnant person and society as a whole, this perspective undermines the sanctity of life, bodily autonomy, moral responsibility, and the role of government in a secular society.
To move forward in this discussion, we must acknowledge the importance of personal choice, consent, and comprehensive support systems for all individuals, regardless of their reproductive decisions.
The Inescapable Dichotomy
Bodily autonomy is the fundamental right of individuals to make decisions about their own bodies. It encompasses the freedom to choose one’s health, medical care, and economic suitability in their decisions. In the context of abortion, this right empowers women to make informed decisions about their pregnancies, considering their personal circumstances, values, and beliefs.
The abortion debate often revolves around the question of when life begins and whether a fetus possesses the same rights as a born human being. Pro-life advocates assert that life begins at conception, granting the fetus the same rights as a born person, while pro-choice advocates argue that the right to bodily autonomy supersedes any potential fetal rights.
This dichotomy poses a significant challenge in reconciling the rights of the fetus with the autonomy of the pregnant person. If forced birth is fully embraced, any exceptions to abortion restrictions become ethically questionable, as they would prioritize the rights of the fetus over the bodily autonomy of the woman.
Therefore, it would be intellectually dishonest for any exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother, to exist with this view. Conversely, advocates of pro-choice are also intellectually dishonest if they support some form of restriction since each case should be determined solely by the pregnant individual.
Resolving the abortion debate necessitates a nuanced understanding of both fetal rights and bodily autonomy. While respecting the potential rights of the unborn is crucial, it cannot come at the expense of disregarding the fundamental right of women to make decisions about their own bodies.
The complexities of each pregnancy, including potential medical risks, economic circumstances, and emotional factors, underscore the importance of individualized assessments and patient-centered care. The woman and her doctor should be the primary decision-makers, considering each situation’s unique needs and circumstances. Therefore, forced birth policies, by their very nature, are intellectually dishonest since human life does not end at birth, and individual rights are not determined morally acceptable by others who might disagree; people deserve a choice. A government that can force birth can also enforce policies that restrict birth, and we should acknowledge how slippery this slope becomes when we begin to head down this path.