Biology and Bodily Autonomy

Last month, one of my friends posted an image of this Instagram conversation on her Facebook account:

No Straw Men Here

The point of the post is clear – you don’t get to call a child an abomination just because of the manner of his or her conception. However, a man named Sam responded by writing the following:

This is a straw man. Just because some people are rude does not mean you get to take away women’s choices

Sam on Facebook

Sam had clearly seen people use the phrase “straw man” in arguments before, but doesn’t understand what it means. The Straw Man Fallacy is when an argument is misrepresented or weakened in an attempt to make it more easily refuted. However, that’s not happening here… In the image, thewhistestguy called unborn children conceived in incest/rape an “abomination of nature”. The user albany_rose pointed out that, if he’s willing to apply this slur to the unborn, he’s implicitly applying this slur to those who are born.

Human Value

I replied to Sam and told him that I don’t personally really care that much about people being rude to me. Rather, I’m more concerned with violence against innocent human beings under the euphemism he used: “choice”. I said that the circumstances of a someone’s conception don’t determine that person’s value:

I explained that even those who favour the death penalty insist that we only kill those who are guilty of a grave crime. What has the child done to deserve the death penalty?

Basic Science

Rather than explain to me why the unborn child deserved death, Sam responded by making a staggering claim:

A fetus is not a child

Sam on Facebook

Naturally, I asked him what he thinks “fetus” means? I explained that “fetus” is just Latin word for “offspring” i.e. a child.

I went on to explain that in modern English we use the word “fetus” to describe a stage of development, just like “infant”, “toddler” and “teenager”. Saying “A fetus is not a child” is as nonsensical as saying that “a toddler is not a child”.

Personhood doesn’t matter?

Once I posted my explanation of the word “fetus”, Sam went back and changed his previous reply (“A fetus is not a child”) to read as follows:

No one can be forced to save another’s life against their will. People cannot be forced to give blood even if it would save a life. Even corpses can’t be forced to donate organs.

Sam on Facebook

When I asked him why he changed his reply, he explained:

I changed my answer because I don’t think discussions about what constitutes personhood are fruitful

Sam on Facebook

So Sam changed his response, not because “A fetus is not a child” is a nonsensical statement, but because he doesn’t think it’s “fruitful”?! I explained that this doesn’t make sense to me. The morality of abortion turns entirely on what it is that is being killed. If it’s not a human being, then it’s no more immoral than having a tooth removed. However… if it’s a human being, then it’s wrong…and science very clearly shows that what is killed in an abortion is a tiny human being.

Returning to his revised answer, Sam had said that “No one can be forced to save another’s life”. The problem is that abortion isn’t failing to save another’s life. Rather, it is actively seeking its death. Sam had said that “People cannot be forced to give blood”. This is true, but that’s because the purpose of my blood is to stay in my circulatory system and keep me alive. It’s a miracle of modern medicine that we can donate blood to help keep other people alive. After establishing that the purpose of my blood, I asked Sam about the purpose of the womb. He didn’t respond, so I explained that its purpose is to allow the safe development of an unborn child. It is for the child. If a woman is pregnant, then the womb is doing what it was designed to do. In contrast, abortion is the deliberate frustration of that organ’s purpose.

Bodily Autonomy

I tried to press Sam on biology. Since he denies the humanity of an unborn child, what are they? However, he wouldn’t be drawn:

The central question is bodily autonomy

Sam on Facebook

I asked Sam if he would you be happy to concede (for the sake of argument, or at least in the absence of any counter-argument) that the unborn are human children, but that this doesn’t matter because bodily autonomy is more important than that child’s life.

I am not conceding anything about personhood, nor am I willing to discuss it.

Sam on Facebook

I pointed out that, if he only wants to talk about bodily autonomy then surely this demonstrates that, from his point of view, that it is immaterial as to what is being killed, since the most important think is bodily autonomy? Surprisingly, he conceded:

Okay. We can say that it’s immaterial. Because a person cannot be forced to give up bodily autonomy even to save the life of another

Sam on Facebook

Moving forward, I asked him how he would justify the assertion that bodily autonomy is so important that it can be used to justify killing another human. This is heightened when you consider that the the parents engaged in an activity (sex) which they knew could bring that person into being in the first place.

Basically because I believe the alternative is worse. For individuals and for society as a whole. Carrying a child for nine months and giving birth to it is a huge decision, and a very dangerous one. And one that no one has the right to make for another.

Now here’s a straightforward question for you: do you believe that a woman should be forced to carry a child to term and give birth to it against her will?

Sam on Facebook

I didn’t really know what to make of this response. I pointed out that I couldn’t see in this response an argument for his position, only the assertion that childbirth is life-changing (which it is) and that we shouldn’t tell people what to do (which we do all the time, particularly when it comes to the protection of their children).

Regarding his question about forcing women to carry to term, I said that once pregnant, a woman has a duty of care for her child and should therefore carry her son or daughter to term. Abortion is simply not an option:

1. A mother as an obligation not to kill her child
2. Abortion kills a child
3. Therefore abortion is not a morally licit option for a mother to take during pregnancy

In reply, Sam said:

Thank you. I don’t agree. I wish that we lived in a world where there was no need to have this discussion. I wish abortion didn’t have to exist. Unfortunately I believe it does. Thank you for the discussion. I hope you have a wonderful day, sincerely.

Sam on Facebook

I told him that I was interested in his comment that he wishes that we lived in a world where abortion didn’t exist. Why did he say this? If bodily autonomy means that abortion is a good, why would there be any regret about abortion? We don’t feel sad about having our appendix taken out or a tumor extracted. I commented that it seems to me to point to a moral intuition that we have over what is happening in an abortion…

I explained to Sam that I have laid out my argument as to why abortion is wrong so that he could pinpoint the flaw in my logic. Where did he think the problem lay?

I received no further reply.