In Part 1 (here) we discussed the scientific reasons why a fetus is a fully human life. In Part 2 (here) we examined the logical issues behind many pro-choice beliefs. With that groundwork laid, it’s time to talk about the most difficult part of the abortion discussion, and whether a woman’s’ right to choose is the end of the debate.
The argument for a woman’s right to choose
Regardless of what science and logic say, the abortion debate is often decided with a simple question: What about the mother’s rights? By humanizing who the debate affects, it can be easy to compromise our values out of respect for a human being’s rights. This argument often falls into three primary categories.
The first is the cruelty of forcing a woman to birth a child she doesn’t want. It doesn’t matter what the reason is, a woman shouldn’t be forced into an experience she doesn’t desire, especially one that will require a complete life change. To force a woman to give birth is seen as a crime against her will.
The second is the question of safety. Statistics are used to show the death rates of women getting “back-alley abortions” before the procedure was legalized. It’s argued, therefore, that to deny access to abortion won’t stop abortions from happening, but will instead lead to death, hospitalization, and even incarceration for those women who will seek them out regardless.
Third, the basic argument is made that we have no right to tell a person what to do with their body. It’s often pointed out that those who want to limit abortions aren’t even affected by them, namely men. This brings the conversation beyond a person’s right to choose and adds sexism and oppression to the discussion.
Overall, this argument puts those on the pro-life side in a difficult, almost villainous, position. Would we really deny a person’s rights to do what they want with their body? Are we so callous as to let a woman die, rather than give access to safe healthcare? And what right do we have to tell someone what to do, especially those of us who are incapable of carrying babies ourselves?
Whose right is right?
Up to this point in the series, we’ve been trying to establish one fact. A fetus, whether we like it or not, is a complete human being. Regardless of looks, size, or viability, there’s no escaping the fact that it is a human life whose value isn’t lessened because it exists in an abdomen. This is a crucial point to make because, without that, there’s no way to argue against a woman’s right to choose. After all, we can’t put the ‘rights” of a piece of tissue over that of a human being.
Yet it’s because a fetus is human that this is so difficult to discuss. Many would agree that all of us should have the liberty to pursue happiness in any way that doesn’t put someone else in danger. For those in the United States, that’s two-thirds of “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
But if a fetus is human, as we’ve established, then we must ask whose right is most important to protect. Is someone’s right to happiness more important than someone’s right to live? Does our need for freedom come at the cost of ending another person’s life? These are the exact questions that we must answer when we decide if a mother’s right to happiness and bodily autonomy is worth more than the child who would be killed.
Let’s not diminish the difficult position of an unwanted pregnancy. A woman’s body has now become the sole means of sustaining another human life. There’s simply nothing else in the world to compare it to, and so we can’t easily point to another issue in the world and show why it’s inconsistent. Motherhood is a completely unique experience, and we must always consider that with great gentleness and care.
Yet in the end, we still come back to the primary focus. Is there ever an occasion where an innocent human life can be ended without its consent? Why is it that any person’s happiness or freedom should be more important than human life?
A mother is put in a difficult position, one that she may not have entered into willingly. Yet we cannot promote a line of thinking that makes happiness of greater value than an innocent life. No human life can be valued based on whether it is wanted. Life has absolute value, and we can’t compromise the importance of protecting it at all stages of existence.
It’s this compromised thinking that has moved us beyond terminating within the first trimester and made it legal to kill a completely viable, fully-grown child mere moments before it is born. It’s this same thinking that will continue to push the boundaries of life’s value. Though horrifying to consider, at this point there’s nowhere to go but to eventually question whether a newborn baby’s right to live has the same value as its mother’s happiness.
Morality can’t bend to safety concerns
The dangers of abortions outside of a doctor’s office sound scary. There’s even a famous image of Gerri Santoro, who died in a hotel room after hemorrhaging from a self-induced abortion, that is used to show just how barbaric it is to restrict abortions (you can find the Wikipedia article here, but be warned that it contains nudity and a very disturbing image).
We argue that abortion should be illegal because it ends a human life without its consent. Yet others argue that people will do it anyway, so we should enable them to do it safely. This kind of thinking can only lead to laws aimed to manage people, rather than help them.
We already see this thinking in action today. There are currently services for drug users to use illegal drugs under medical supervision to prevent overdosing. Likewise, lawmakers are pushing for legalizing prostitution in an attempt to reduce on-the-job violence and make it easier to report assault and rape to police. Things that we’ve always understood to be dangerous, both to individuals and the moral integrity of a group of people, have been compromised because we’re failing to help these people, so we settle for simply managing them. Yet compromised morals are never content to stop.
Let’s pause to look at a disturbing example of why this argument fails.
For years there has been a vocal minority of people pushing to legalize pedophilia. Although they are often shut down due to lack of support, there still exists a group of people in the world who want to free children from the oppression of “ageism.” Some of these have even been child psychologists who insist that children are fully capable of entering into romantic or sexual relationships with adults, but we harm them by restricting them and stunting their mental growth.
Now using the same logic of prioritizing safety over morality, consider the dangerous way a pedophile can argue their position.
- Children suffer great psychological damage from the fear and violation of criminal pedophiles. This could be remedied by normalizing sexual experiences at any age, or at least significantly younger than 18, allowing children to explore and talk about things without shame or fear.
- Women and children are trafficked all around the world because people have sexual wants that they can’t satisfy legally. Human trafficking leads to countless deaths from violence, poor hygiene, disease, and generally unsafe conditions. Were pedophilia (and prostitution in general) made legal, human trafficking would stop flourishing as more safe places for clients and child workers were established.
- Men make up the vast majority of pedophiles. Because of its stigma, those who are arrested suffer great violence and persecution. There’s a popular understanding that if you want to survive prison, the last thing you want to be is a police officer or a pedophile. Yet if pedophilia were made legal, the prejudice and violence against these men would drop significantly.
This reveals the core flaw in the argument that abortion should be legal so it can be safe. Looking past the absolute moral depravity involved in supporting pedophilia, consider the underlying point of the argument.
- Pedophiles will commit their crimes anyway
- People (both pedophiles and their victims) will be harmed as a result
- Thus, it only makes sense to compromise our morality on the safety of children and find a way to make pedophilia legal and safe for all involved.
While this argument seems absurd, shocking, and outside the realm of possibility (and I do hope it stays that way), consider that abortion once found itself in the same camp. Even 50 years ago, who would have thought it acceptable to abort a fully-formed child just moments before its birth? What seems morally shocking now only requires time and compromise to become normalized in the future.
There’s no denying that the suffering and death of illegal abortions are horrifying and tragic. Yet if all life is equal, we simply cannot grant the legalized death of millions over the potential suffering and death of those who would seek to illegally end an unborn child’s life. Morality must change the law, not the other way around.
Defending life is universal
One of the best ways to shut down a pro-life argument is to point to gender. Men aren’t capable of getting pregnant, nor are they the ones faced with the difficult reality of giving birth or having an abortion. For a man to set laws on a woman’s body, therefore, is oppression.
Yet consider what this says about truth. If one person says something is right, and another says it’s wrong, how do we determine the reality of the disagreement? If all that’s required for truth is a person’s proximity to it, then truth is no longer true.
In other words, abortion can’t be right simply because someone affected by it wants it to be right. Likewise, a person saying it’s wrong can’t be ignored simply because they don’t have a personal investment. Morality, like truth, is not a matter of taste and opinion.
Morality is universal. It may be warped and tainted by culture, but true morality doesn’t change with public opinion. If that were true, then morality would be nothing more than “What can people tolerate” rather than “What can never be tolerated?”
Thus we come to the issue of restricting someone’s opinions on abortion. To say that a man cannot set a law simply because his gender isn’t directly affected by it is to dodge the actual issue. The issue has never been women’s rights. The problem will forever be whether it is right to end an innocent life.
The rights of the unborn have nothing to do with gender. It has to do with the universal understanding that life is precious. If a fetus is a human life, then that fetus has the right to life. To bring a person’s gender into the discussion is to make a child’s life worth less simply because the wrong gender is fighting for them.
All life is valuable
As this article comes to a close, it’s important to point out why the woman’s right to choose needs to be closely examined. Many women feel abortion is their only option because they don’t have the support they feel is required to give birth and care for a child. And in many cases, they’re probably right.
As we fight for a child’s right to survive the womb, let us never forget that our care for life doesn’t end at birth. If all life is worth protecting, then we must also seek ways to support and encourage that same child and its family after birth. It’s so disheartening that many who fight for the lives of the unborn are the same ones who show the most disregard for the lives of those who feel they must kill their child to survive.
There is never a reason to end a child’s life out of fear or convenience. Yet we can’t be content to see a child born and feel as though we’ve done all we should. As individuals and as voters, we must keep fighting for all lives, born and unborn alike.
