ThruFire

Burning off the dross

BioSLED – Handling Bodily Autonomy Abortion Arguments

How to apply BioSLED – the best argument against abortion-choice against those who believe a mother’s “right to bodily autonomy” justifies abortion.


In abortion debates, some concede the pre-born are human beings, but they’ll say:

Abortion is justifiable, because the mother has the right to control how her own body is used.

Such arguments justify abortion by asserting that the mother’s right to her bodily autonomy is greater than her own child’s right to life during gestation, or even later.

Baby kick foot

All bodily autonomy arguments play on Dependency. They deny the intrinsic value of human beings by falsely assuming (“begging the question” -petitio principii) that the responsibility to be morally humane can have exceptions. They subvert the intrinsic value of the mother and the definition of motherhood by insisting that an act of violence against an innocent dependent human being is moral, humane and beneficial.

BioSLED Response: “Can you name one act of mortal violence inflicted upon a dependent human being which is moral, humane, beneficial and desired by the dependent?”

Who receives the benefits of the violence?

After live birth, is it okay to kill dependent newborns, toddlers, kids, teens?

Reasoning: Show there are no exceptions for violence against dependent human beings. This pits a person’s understanding of self-determination up against their own victimizing behavior. If someone genuinely believes in the goodness of humanity and self-autonomy, when they resort to violence to benefit themselves, they desecrate their own humanity and cruelly victimize others.

Killing is an act of commission, meaning the violence of abortion is a direct application of force (argumentum ad baculum) on the mother’s behalf, and the violence only happens because she is a mother.

Those who defend bodily autonomy violence provide a circular argument. They reject the notion of the intrinsic value of the dependent human child while at the same time demanding the intrinsic-value of the mother be upheld. Such inequality of basic human rights is the hallmark of discrimination.

Further, some claim the Environment – the natural location of the child in the mother’s womb, justifies the abortion, but admit bodily dependency ends when birth occurs. Others, like Peter Singer, and President Barack Obama, aim to sever relational dependency, to permit the killing of dependent newborns.

So the issue is not gestational dependency alone, but violence explicitly against a dependent. On this planet, we are all dependent upon each other to some degree. There are no exceptions to being humane with dependents.

For Legalists: Legalists place functionality above morality by falsely assuming human rights are granted by a government. The documented, legally demonstrable view is that human rights are endowed by a Creator (meaning they are intrinsic) and merely defended by a government. Some claim gestation is a special right granted to the pre-born by the mother but this rejects the notion that life is a right granted from outside of man’s control, and rejects the very process of motherhood by which all humans live. So it condones the use of violence against the very nature of human life itself.

Another variation, pregnancy as slavery, is invalid because pregnancy is a humane, survivable natural good, beneficial to all of humanity, while murder of posterity is not. Consent to intercourse was free-will consent to a dependent human being, as that is the natural purpose of intercourse. Demanding one uphold their responsibilities to other human beings, such as respecting the life you participated in creating, is a far cry from imposing situations upon human beings who had no choice in the outcome – which is precisely what those who demand abortion do to the unborn human beings.

So legally, the government is failing to uphold the very human rights they are incorporated to defend.

3 Comments

  1. Pingback: BioSLED - Bodily-autonomy Abortion Absurdity | ThruFire

  2. It is not a baby at conception, heck you can’t even prove it is alive at conception. And you can’t prove it is human at conception. And the Law of Charity makes it clear that even if it is and you attempt to save it, you will kill other life.

  3. @R.C. Crawford

    Your argument is invalid – it completely “begs the question.” You’re putting your conclusion in as a premise (the “Law of Consent”):

    All conceptions occur via sexual intercourse
    All conceptions may naturally abort
    Some conceptions naturally abort
    (Consent to sexual intercourse is implied consent for abortion)
    ——
    Therefore: All conceptions have implied consent for abortion

    Even with a possibility of natural abortion through miscarriage, how does that make elective abortion morally acceptable? Are you saying any externally induced abortion is natural? Are you arguing moral choices are natural acts? That makes about as much sense as saying murder is not wrong, because someone was going to die anyway, and another’s choice to kill is merely part of a natural process of death.

    You misattribute a non-universal (some risk there may be a natural abortion) as a universal basis for elective abortion. That is, acceptance of some risk is actually acceptance of all risk – including the mother making a choice.

    You’d probably find the following situation morally wrong: A woman and a man agree to have a child together. After intercourse a child is conceived. The woman then decides she doesn’t want to be pregnant and so aborts the child, against the consent of the man. Is her responsibility towards fulfilling the initial agreement no longer valid because she’s made a different choice later? Should the man bear all risk in the agreement – including her reneging on the initial agreement? Does she bear no liability at all? How is that just for the man?

    Here’s an analogous scenario – a man agrees to protect a woman. Later he decides he doesn’t want to protect her, so he kills her. Is his responsibility towards fulfilling the initial agreement no longer valid because he’s made a different choice later?

    If you don’t find those situations morally wrong, then apparently you have absolutely no understanding of positive law. You’re conflating natural law and positive law.

    You’re not making a valid argument – but simply attempting to dress a bad argument up in “scientific” clothes.