There are two major viewpoints in the abortion debate. One is called “pro-choice” while the other is called “pro-life.” But what if I were to say that the debate misstates the real issue about abortion? What if I were to say there is a different way to view abortion from a societal lens? In this article, I aim to prove that there is no justification for abortion except in extreme cases and that society and the state should reverse its abortion policies for the social good.
The Social Good
If one wants to live in a well-functioning society and state, one must obey their laws and customs. We participate in society and the state by entering into a social contract by choice. If we don’t wish to live by the social contract, then we are free to leave as we please. This means that we must give up some rights to enter this social contract in order to gain some privileges in return to achieve the ultimate goal of the social good. The social good is society and the state creating an environment where life and well-being can flourish for anyone who obeys its laws and customs correctly.
But one might object and ask why the good has to be social rather than an individual good. Why should society and the state determine the good instead of the individual determining it for themselves? Society and the state should determine the good because individuals must enter into voluntary associations with others if they wish to live with one another. That an individual can be completely self-sufficient and without aid from any other person cannot be maintained, for even Thoreau lived in Walden for a few months in total solitude.
The social good must be one where all individuals can agree on fundamental principles that make society and the state function properly and live in harmony. Each society and state will differ according to the individuals that compose it, but sound fundamental principles that undergird each law must be present in every well-functioning society and state. If a society and state deviates from implementing and practicing these sound fundamental principles, then that society and state must be regarded as dysfunctional, for it is well nigh impossible for a society and state to disregard sound fundamental principles and yet be functional at the same time.
With that established, it is beyond this article to explain the fundamental principles fully, for that would require a book. We will cover only the fundamental principle germane to this article. Hence, there is no doubt that one of the fundamental principles that sustains a well-functioning society and state is the sanctity of life principle. This principle holds that sentient life is holy and sacred. On that principle, laws must be crafted to protect sentient life. A well-functioning society and state that practices this principle undoubtedly sees its society and state flourish as human life is valued and crime and bloodshed is greatly mitigated. However, one can see plainly that a society and state that doesn’t hold to the sanctity of life is a society awash with corruption, crime and poverty. Laws are crafted for the self-interest of a class of people instead of the whole of society and the state, crime goes unpunished, and avarice and greed are extolled and celebrated while frugality and temperance is maligned and castigated. There is no doubt that corruption, crime and poverty cannot be considered things that promote the life and well-being of individuals wherein they can flourish. It must be that practices that value human life and mitigate crime and bloodshed greatly promote life and well-being for individuals, and this must in turn promote the social good.
Every society and state aims, in some way, to be a well-functioning society and state and it would be of its own great interest to adopt the sanctity of life principle to become one. Thus, the sanctity of life must be established as a fundamental principle for a well-functioning society and state and it must be considered a part of the social good. For when individuals hold to the sanctity of life for others and well as themselves, society and the state flourishes for as many individuals as possible and this ultimately promotes the social good.
One must establish this fact of the social good before we enter into the abortion argument. The preservation of society and the state must be a factor when considering abortion. In this case, the social good must be preserved over the individual.
Dismantling the Abortion Advocacy Argument
The abortion advocates state that a woman has the ability to use her body as she pleases without any external interference impeding her. They hold that external interference to impeding her decision in having an abortion is tantamount to controlling her agency and humanity and renders her an object. A person has complete and exclusive control over their body. Since no one has a right to control another person without their consent, both in nature and in society, a woman must have the complete ability to use her body as she pleases without any external interference impeding her. The woman’s right to an abortion should be unlimited since her right to her body is unlimited.
That is a good argument. But we must ask this question: Is a woman’s bodily autonomy completely unlimited? Can she have control over her body no matter the circumstance? Let’s think about it. Would it be right that society and the state allows a woman to commit self-immolation? If one says yes, then one would maintain that people can have the right to burn themselves since it is their body. But if society and the state allows this, then society and the state allows people to destroy themselves. And if society and the state allows people to destroy themselves, then society and the state is complicit in people destroying themselves. If society and the state is complicit, then how would its moral principles have any meaning if it doesn’t value the sanctity of life but instead encourages its destruction? If morality is meant to preserve and enhance life but society and the state allows for people to destroy lives, then that contradiction cannot be maintained. Society and the state has to choose one or the other. To be well-functioning, society and the state must ensure that it promotes life and well-being instead of death and deterioration.
Even if the individual does not view their life as valuable, the principle of the sanctity of life is universal for all people to hold all life as valuable. A life that ceases to exist ceases to be a life, so the act of preventing life to cease to exist is an act that considers life valuable. With this understood, society and the state is permitted to take certain actions to preserve and protect life lest any law or custom it passes is meaningless, even if it is against the individual’s will.
How does this relate to the abortion advocate’s argument? It proves that the blanket assertion of a woman having bodily autonomy is invalid. If a woman’s use of her body leads to moral dilemmas like the one above, then the abortion advocate’s argument cannot be maintained because society and the state would lose its moral legitimacy if it disregards the sanctity of life principles by allowing life to be marred by death and deterioration.
The next question is whether a woman’s bodily autonomy to perform an abortion allows society and the state to promote life and well-being instead of death and deterioration. The abortion advocate would argue that they are not killing any life because the fetus isn’t a life and they aren’t destroying themselves and society and the state, either. But if one were to examine it closely, one would see that this argument is dubious. Suppose every woman in the world were to have an abortion. And suppose further that no woman afterwards tries to have any children. What would be the result? Life would cease after a few generations and society and the state would cease to exist. If this is the case, would it prove that the potential life of the fetus is comparable to being a life in and of itself? Shouldn’t society and the state protect that potential life to uphold the sanctity of life and well-being? And if it doesn’t, wouldn’t it be involved in the destruction of life itself? I say yes on all counts. Thus, it cannot be maintained that the abortion advocate’s position doesn’t involve death and deterioration.
With this established, a woman’s bodily autonomy to have an abortion has to be forfeited. Since society and the state must have its laws and customs promote life and well-being, abortion allows for life and well-being to be destroyed since it leads to the end of life and well-being. The death of one person is tantamount to the death of all of life since life is indivisible and universal to all those who possess it. Consequently, to save one person is to save the whole world. Thus, a woman cannot have the right to an abortion because it goes against the social good.
But the abortion advocate could give a strong counter-argument that the woman must have the ability to abort a baby when her life is in danger. They can also demonstrate that a woman who is raped can also abort a baby when her psychological well-being is in jeopardy. Women whose life is in danger should have an abortion in order to save her life. And a woman who has been raped should have an abortion to save her psychological well-being as she could commit grave harm to herself if she proceeds with the abortion.
In circumstances that involve the preservation of life and well-being, this counter-argument would succeed because society and the state must not allow for a woman’s life to be lost in order to deliver a baby. Society and the state must also allow a woman who has been raped to abort a child in order to save her psychological well-being in fear it may harm her gravely. In these rare cases, an abortion should be permissible to save a woman’s life.
Abortion Allows for Deviant Behavior To Grow
Another objection to abortion is that it doesn’t promote virtuous behavior. A well-functioning society and state must have laws and customs that promote virtue. Simply following the law cannot be enough to establish a well-functioning society and state. A well-functioning society and state must train its individuals to have good, moral character where the observance of its laws and customs can be done without constraint or vexation. Virtue promotes good behavior which promotes life and well-being. If a law or custom fails to do this, then the law or custom is not for the social good and it must be rejected.
If one were to accept the abortion advocate’s argument of bodily autonomy without qualification, then legal contracts must be rendered unenforceable by the courts. Suppose one has a woman who is a surrogate. The surrogate signs a contract with the child’s mother to deliver the baby for a certain sum of money. But suppose that a few months into the pregnancy the surrogate changes her mind and wants to abort the child. If the child’s mother tries to take her to court to move the court for specific performance, the court would have no power to enable this. Since the woman has full agency over her body, no court can control how a woman uses her body because it would violate her bodily autonomy. This fact would render the contract unenforceable and allow the surrogate to violate the contract.
But suppose further that disagreeable women can become surrogates and have an abortion in spite of another woman? Wouldn’t that behavior be considered unvirtuous? Indeed it would. But we have already established above that society and the state will enable this conduct to go on under the abortion advocate’s reasoning. If this behavior is allowed, then wouldn’t it encourage moral vices to grow? One can surmise that it would. And if moral vices are to grow, then it could lead to a well-functioning society and state to become dysfunctional over time. Thus, the abortion advocate’s position stands against the social good.
Society must promote virtuous behavior to preserve and enhance life and well-being. The abortion advocate position clearly prevents society from achieving this end because it permits people not to honor contracts and it enables them to act unscrupulously with impunity.
Abortion Leads To More Irresponsible Considerations
The abortion advocate’s position discourages virtue because it allows for the logical acceptance of irresponsible behavior from men. A society and state must establish their laws and customs based on reason and logical consistency for the social good alone. A society and state that doesn’t follow this will be prone to acting without regard to principles which could violate fundamental principles that endanger the life and well-being of individuals in society and the state which is against the social good. For if a society and state’s laws and customs would entail logical consistency for actions or behaviors bereft of virtue, then the society and state’s laws and customs are at war with the social good which is wrong. Consequently, a well-functioning society and state must have its laws and customs be rooted in reason and logical consistency for the social good alone. With this, since irresponsible behavior leads to a dysfunctional society and state, the abortion advocate’s position must be considered wrong for the sake of the social good.
The abortion advocate’s position indubitably discriminates against men. The argument allows for women to cease being parents of their child but it doesn’t acknowledge whether men have that choice. And oftentimes, it gives women great power over men that they can use to men’s disadvantage.
Suppose the father of the child wants for the mother to have the child. If the mother of the child says she doesn’t want the child, then the father would have no choice but to accept her decision. But suppose that the man doesn’t want to have the child but the woman does. If she decides to have the child, then she is in essence forcing the man to be the father of the child. And the state forces men to pay for child support even if they haven’t signed the birth certificate. According to the courts, this is often done for the best interest of the child even if it is injurious to the man’s interests.
But isn’t this a double standard? How can society and the state allow for the woman to have the choice to abort the child and not be the mother but it doesn’t do this for men? Wouldn’t the sensible solution be to allow men to have the ability to have no legal obligation to the child if they choose to? That they wouldn’t be obligated to pay child support or have visitation rights at all? One would say that this would indeed be the fair way to go about the situation.
To maintain logical consistency, abortion advocates must allow men to forfeit their parental duties and rights and render the child a legitimate bastard in society’s eyes. But the cost of allowing this to happen is to enable the breeding of a child who is unloved and undisciplined by a good mother and father. Many children who lack good parents end up becoming criminals and help destroy society. Since this would lead to more irresponsible behavior that would invariably lead to death and deterioration, if society and state wishes to be well-functioning and ordered for the social good then abortion should be rejected except in extreme cases.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this demonstrates that abortion leads to society and the state adopting uncouth and unscrupulous practices. When one lives in society and the state, they must live according to a social contract. To be in this social contract, some rights must be forfeited. We have demonstrated in this article that the right to one’s body cannot be unlimited because it hampers society’s moral legitimacy which goes against the social good. We have also maintained that the right to an abortion is one right that must be forfeited because it goes against the social good as it threatens the sanctity of life. Moreover, we have also maintained that abortion leads to people committing vices with impunity and that goes against the social good, too. And we have maintained that abortion leads to more irresponsible behavior being legitimized and that undoubtedly goes against the social good. Therefore, to maintain a well-functioning society that promotes the social good, abortion must be rejected except for extreme cases such as a woman’s life being in danger and a woman who has been raped. Abortion, outside of those circumstances, is against the social good and it must be abolished to maintain a well-functioning society and state.