The Problem of Citing Bodily Autonomy in Defense of Legalized Abortion

Author’s Note: Abortion is an extremely sensitive issue for many, and must be approached with sensitivity and compassion, especially for the women and families who have been so deeply impacted by the agonizing decision over whether or not to terminate a fetus, and for those who have been wounded by the often uncaring and hurtful words of people on both sides of the debate. The intention of this piece isn’t to provide a “gotcha” argument for either side, but rather to help all those involved in forming public opinion and policy to reasonably think through the unquestioned assumptions we often hold regarding when individual lives (and their associated rights) do or don’t begin.

Many pro-choice advocates appeal to the individual woman's right to bodily autonomy as justification for free access to abortion. Though attempting to build a strong philosophical foundation for any political belief is important, I do not think the concept of “bodily autonomy,” or the right for a person to make all choices regarding the health and care of their bodies, is as sound as it may at first seem.

We as a society seem to have already agreed there are certain times when bodily autonomy can and indeed should be violated. For instance, most tend to agree that people should be vaccinated, even if the personal views of individuals run counter to the practice. This violation of bodily autonomy is generally justified by the risk non-vaccinated people pose to the rest of the population. When it comes to gun control, many societies have agreed that the right to bodily self defense must be weighed against the concerns of a safer society and the realities of mass shootings, suicides, and domestic abuse. And almost every nation on the planet is willing to compromise the bodily autonomy of certain classes of people (soldiers, prisoners, etc.) in order to maintain a stable society. Finally, we're also coming to the realization that the fight against climate change will likely require global action which restricts the choices of many individuals with respect to their own bodies (everything from freedom of transportation to the types of food we eat will be impacted)(1).

All of these pressing concerns demonstrate the reality that a perceived right to bodily autonomy isn't as inviolable as we may initially think. This is especially true when we consider that no man or woman is an island, and each decision we make impacts the lives of many others. This also means that when we decide to end the life of an unborn child (or, at the least, the potential life of a fetus); the decision almost always has further reaching impacts than in the life of the mother alone. The truth is, no body is really autonomous.

If we say a fetus is less of a person simply because it is wholly reliant on the mother for life, then we may as well argue that no one has rights; because literally every human being on the planet is part of an interconnected, complex system and each requires the others to survive. The species could not survive if each human being were truly divorced from the support she or he receives from others.

Because of this, and because I do think a fetus is a life with certain inalienable rights, I cannot support legalized abortion (except in the case of medical emergencies). I must admit that as a person of faith, I believe there is a sacredness to life... to all life, but especially to human life. And when we remove our sense of life's fundamental value, then all individual rights are at risk of dissolving before the ever-increasing needs of "the greater good." The irony is that when we begin to see unborn children as expendable tissue, it isn't that far of a cognitive leap to seeing born children as expendable as well.

But I also recognize that not everyone in this country holds to my particular religious beliefs. Since our country is based upon the principles of free expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of belief; any relevant policy decisions must be based not on the tenets of a particular religion, but through the development of coherent political philosophies arrived at through the application of reason.

Though I have many religious reasons for opposing abortion (the sacredness of life, the creation of humanity in God’s image, and God’s care for the voiceless and defenseless); I do not believe that faith and reason must necessarily conflict. And in this case, I believe that they do not. I simply think there is a stronger philosophical foundation for contending that fetuses have certain rights which must be considered equal to any other right (including the rights of born men and women); than the contention that abortion is justified by the right to bodily autonomy alone, especially since no bodies are truly autonomous.

This is because the same reasons for asserting the rights of those who have already been born apply equally to the unborn. These reasons are both biological and philosophical. Both groups exhibit biological individuality (both born and unborn have their own, unique DNA). And both groups exhibit the potentiality for agency (agency being defined as the capacity for intentional action).

If we judge the value of human life on individual agency alone (as many pro-choice advocates seem to affirm), then we suddenly run the risk of arguing that the elderly, the infirm, or the handicapped are somehow less human. This is why "potentiality for agency" is a better basis for asserting individual rights than simply "agency" or even viability alone.

But when we destroy a life, for any other reason than to save another life (and even then it's an ethical gray area that must be approached with compassion and sensitivity), we necessarily violate the intrinsic value of that life (whether born or unborn).

I don't want to restrict anyone's rights more than necessary. And I certainly don't want women to be oppressed, or left out in the cold to take care of vulnerable lives alone. We must have strong social webs of support for women in need. But I just can't see the justification for supporting legalized abortion in light of all this.

Footnotes

(1) I briefly considered including seat belt laws in the list of ways we as a society have decided public health concerns trump bodily autonomy, but I felt that would unnecessarily bog down the article. Suffice it to say there are many laws on the books which restrict the rights of individuals to make decisions regarding their own bodily health.

Toward a Philosophical Understanding of Abortion and Human Rights

Since the landmark Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade in 1973, the debate regarding abortion has taken a center stage in the political discourse of the United States. Unfortunately, this debate too often degrades into tired platitudes and appeals to party lines on both sides. Even worse, the well-being of mothers and babies is held hostage to political power plays.

On the pro-life side, I often hear appeals to religious principles or scriptural passages, but how do we apply these in a secular nation? Can we really expect those who don’t believe as we do to accept the formulations from a book they don’t read or care about? Apart from scripture, how do we develop an argument that human life (both pre- and post-born) should be respected? At a more basic level, is there an argument to be made that a freshly formed zygote is an individual human being with individual rights?

On the pro-choice side, I often hear the line that a fetus, or fertilized egg, is just a mass of tissues and has no rights apart from the mother. The problem is, I rarely hear a philosophical reason for why the process of birth separates masses of tissues from fully formed human beings. Beyond the ritual of having fluid squeezed from the lungs and passing through a tunnel, what is the difference between a baby moments from being born, and one already in its mother’s arms?

I think it is clear that, in the context of these important questions, one’s political opinion be founded on philosophically coherent principles. And the fundamental philosophical question is this: Are zygotes and fetuses fundamentally human beings with intrinsic, individual rights?

Now, as a Christian, I can’t completely remove the influence of my faith from my political positions, since the fundamental linchpin of my understanding of the universe rests in the belief that we are created in the image of God and like God, we have will, desire, moral understanding, and the ability to create, destroy, and shape our environments. Still, even a person who either denies the existence of God, or whose understanding of God is fundamentally different from mine, can at least (hopefully) agree that human beings exhibit the above attributes. That being said, I go a step further in my philosophy of individual rights.

You see, the above attributes all focus on “ability”. Humans have the ability to express will or desire, to create or destroy, to make moral choices, etc. However, if our definition of a human being only rests in its ability, what does this mean for the mentally or physically handicapped? Or for those whose ability is restricted by external circumstance, like the poor? Or those whose ability is restricted by past choices, like the prisoner? Even in the past century, we have seen many atrocities committed by regimes who denied the intrinsic, fundamental human right to life of one or more of these groups because they lacked “ability” in one way or another.

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and the Kims of North Korea all provide ready examples of the terror such a definition of humanity can create. It would be bad enough if these outbursts of violent and repressive regimes were the only examples we had, but there are new acts of violence and death perpetrated each day, all over the face of this planet. Every murder, every execution, every act of war represents the destruction of one or more human beings. And in order for a human to kill another human being, they first have to justify it in some way. Usually this means making an argument that the other human being has lost their right to life in some way, and have become less than human. Whether these deaths are justified (for instance in the execution of criminals or when fighting wars) is beyond the scope of this article.

But in the context of abortion, the observation remains true, people justify killing fetuses using the same psychological mechanism which allows them to kill enemies. This tells me their philosophical foundation for human rights is fundamentally deficient. A very pertinent example is the current practice in Iceland to screen for Down’s Syndrome and abort fetuses based on the results. On the one hand, their efforts are being lauded as successfully eliminating the genetic malady from the country. But at the same time, almost any parent of a Down’s Syndrome child will tell you just how wonderful, loving, and happy they can be. How long before we begin aborting fetuses that have the genetic disposition for heart disease, obesity, or brown eyes instead of blue?

To correct this, I argue that we must expand our definition to not only include “ability,” but also “potential.” Though a fetus is utterly reliant on its mother for the sustenance of its life and its ability for self-expression is severely limited at the moment, its potential for all the above attributes is never diminished. After all, a newborn baby is just as reliant on its mother’s survival as an unborn fetus and most humans of any age are utterly reliant on their communities for their survival, as well. In fact, no matter what challenges or changes the human organism faces throughout its life, though its ability is constantly changing as well, its potential for further expression in each of the above areas (however small) continues to remain a fundamental attribute.

This expansion of our definition of humanity has the potential to revolutionize how we philosophically frame a wide variety of political and ethical issues, including debates over the justification of war, capital punishment, euthanasia, poverty alleviation, environmental policy, and even the extension of rights to artificial intelligence or extraterrestrials we may come in contact with (topics which are science fiction now, but may become a part of reality in the future).

For me though, the issue is much simpler. Because I’ve fallen deeply, irrevocably, and irrationally in love with God; I love the bearers of God’s image just as deeply. To see any destroyed breaks my heart.

#politics #philosophy #abortion #prolife #prochoice

Abortion and the Language of Ownership

I recently read a Huffington Post article regarding a sermon preached by Pastor Jeff Crawford at Cross Church, where he states that a woman's body is not her own, but belongs to God. Theologically, he seems to be working from the point that if creation belongs to God, and humanity within it, then naturally our bodies belong to God. While I do not think that it was his intention to single out women's' bodies over men's; the fact that a male preacher is using the logic of ownership when speaking about the relationship between God, a woman's body, and a developing fetus, tends to reinforce the image of the church as a patriarchal organization whose chief purpose for being is to control people.

The Language of Ownership v. The Language of Emancipation 

While there are many who share the view that God “owns” us, I think that this is a misreading of scripture, especially when read in the context of Jesus' mission. There are definitely many religious leaders who frame their understanding of morality in terms of ownership and servitude, which borders on the rationale for slavery. But there are many others who frame their religious understanding of morality in terms of grace, freedom, and love. I tend to think that whatever the individual moral positions being debated (whether abortion, the death penalty, civil rights, etc.), the second line of thought is more helpful and a better paradigm for human beings to operate under.

While the Bible definitely addresses issues regarding ownership and property, they are almost always concessions to the human desire to find our identity in terms of control and occupation. God knows that humans have a tough time sharing. If we all were able to equitably distribute resources, then there would be no need for economic, political, or judicial systems. We would still be living in the paridisical relationship for which we were created. However, because we have chosen to corrupt our relationship to God, each other, and creation through sinful action, any attempts or even dreams of utopia tend to fall short. The Bible doesn't address issues of ownership because such a system is what God desires. It addresses these issues because it must address the reality of our fallen, selfish state and the inequality with which we tend to frame our relationships.

In fact, I would argue that the entire concept of ownership is a human (and relatively recent) invention. To frame our understanding of God, the cosmos, or ethical practice on terms of “ownership” will always pit human beings against each other. I think that if God exists, and if God created and sustains the cosmos, with life and an evolving humanity within it (with free will); then this means that even God has relinquished any "right of ownership" in favor of developing a relationship with humanity founded on mutual love.

Something which owns another, cannot expect the other to freely choose right over wrong, life over death. Ownership (and slavery, which is ownership of the body) is the language of force and violence. Redemption is the language of peace and reconciliation.

Applying the Language of Emancipation to the Abortion Debate

To bring this back to the issue at hand, I think we should address abortion theologically and in the context of the gospel message: which is the proclamation of redemption through love, and freedom through reconciliation (Lk. 4:17-21). I do not oppose abortion on the grounds of God's right of ownership (after all, the ownership argument still doesn't address the status of the fetus within the woman's body). I oppose abortion in most cases because all life is sacred, and the potential for life is sacred. Even if a fetus is part of a woman's body, its growth is still a sacred part of the life which God created. The sacred nature of life should be the focal point for the theological and philosophical consideration of abortion; instead of notions regarding ownership of the woman's body, or the individuality of the fetus.

I have no doubt that both sides value life. But for us to come to any kind of truly ethical conclusion, I think we should value BOTH the life of the mother and the potential of life for future generations, represented in the fetus. Using “ownership” as an argument is simply misleading, and I would argue, may even be contrary to the core of the gospel message.

#abortion #pro-life #pro-choice #women #God #ownership #emancipation #Gospel