The Governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, has until May 12^th to either sign or veto a bill that would ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected.  Until then we should expect that the heat from human rights advocates in Hollywood will continue to increase.  They have threated to boycott the state if HB 481 becomes law because it is a dangerous bill that threatens “to strip women of their bodily autonomy.”  Whether it is the pithy “my body, my choice” or this principle of “bodily autonomy”, the idea is often invoked to defend abortion.  Therefore, it merits a discussion in order to insert some sanity into what is otherwise an insane defense of abortion.

Hidden and Not-So Hidden Assumptions

To refute this position, we must first understand the assumptions upon which it rests.  First notice that by invoking this type of argument they are admitting that the fetus is in fact a person.  Otherwise their position is absurd in that it contradicts both science and common sense.  From the moment of conception, the fetus is an independent biological entity that is self-directed with its own DNA. Now only thing necessary for growth and development is the same thing we need—water, food, oxygen and a healthy interaction with its natural environment.  So then it is not a “part” of the mother’s body.  This would also lead to the absurd conclusion, that a woman who is carrying a boy has a penis and if she is carrying a girl she has two vaginas and four breasts.  Perhaps though, this is not as absurd as it used to be.

Interestingly enough, this concession actually gives too much, at least according to Roe v Wade.  As Justice Harry Blackmum put it “(If the) suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”  Nevertheless the argument they are making is that the right to bodily autonomy trumps (or at least carries the same moral weight as) the right to life.  In fact to listen to them, it would seem that the right to bodily autonomy is absolute and eclipses all other moral claims.

The bodily autonomy argument rests upon a certain metaphysical presumption of what it means to be human.  This presumption reveals itself when we examine the definition—“bodily autonomy is defined as the right to self-governance over one’s own body without external influence or coercion.”  If we remove the veil of the “rights language” we immediately realize that while this could be a legitimate right, it can never be absolute.  You simply cannot govern your own body without external influence or coercion in all cases because there are other people around.  To grant this right to everyone would inevitably lead to chaos.  That is because man is social by nature and thus there are certain obligations that arise as members of society.  One such obligation is the obligation that a mother has towards her child. 

As the usage of the term autonomy suggests, the abortion defender assumes that there are no such things as obligations, or at least to be an obligation it must be voluntarily accepted.  All relationships and the obligations attached to them contain an opt-out clause because autonomy dictates that there be ongoing consent.  We can see that in certain relationships this is true, but in others the obligation exists.  A mother and a father came into a relationship with each other and with a child voluntarily and thus they bear the obligation to nurture that child.  A mother is a mother whether she consents to be or not.

The Principle of Consent

This last statement, namely that a mother and father came into relationship with each other and with a child voluntarily, ought to be obvious, but it bears some explanation anyway.  One of the reasons why abortion has become so prevalent is because the connection of sex and babies has been virtually divorced.  I say “virtually” because this disconnect can only be mental and never real.  The fact that we even have something like birth control and abortion admits to this fact.  Consent to any given activity is also consent to all the natural consequences attached to that activity, even if it is only implicit.  The trapeze artist who jumps to another midflight consents not just to being caught but to falling.  He may take many precautions so that he doesn’t fall, but if he does then no one would call it unexpected but an accident.  In fact, this intrinsic connection to falling is what makes the activity so exciting.  In a similar manner consent to sexual intercourse is consent to a child because children are a natural consequence of that particular activity.  Like the trapeze artist, a couple might have an “accident” but it would never be unexpected because it is an activity that is ordered towards that outcome.  We may attempt to alter that outcome by being “safe” but that does not change the intrinsic connection.

 But not all children are conceived as a result of a consensual act, so what can we say about cases of rape.  We must first call the abortion supporter to task for attempting to argue from exception.  Even if we were to say that abortion is permissible in the case of rape, this is not really what they are after.  They want abortion on demand and when they are pressed on the case of rape they will reveal that.  Nevertheless, what we have said also applies to the hard case of rape.

Recall that in order for this line of argument in favor of abortion to proceed, they must be willing to concede that the fetus is a person.  Otherwise the argument crumbles and the rape exception is a red herring.  As social beings, we are our brother’s keepers.  We have an obligation to protect the life of the most vulnerable among us, even though it might be at great personal cost.  This obligation is a social one, meaning that everyone must do their part.  Some play a part, even if only temporarily, that no one else can play, but that does not remove the obligation.  This might be called the argument of common decency.    It simply means that a woman must endure the labor of delivery, but not necessarily the labor of raising the child.  For that, there are other members of society who are willing to step up.  To the issue at hand, it is not without irony that the number of abortions yearly in our country is almost identical to the number of people seeking to adopt. 

Under closer inspection then it appears that the argument of bodily autonomy falls flat.  There can be no such thing as unlimited bodily autonomy without destroying not just babies in the womb, but society as a whole.