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 should reverse its abortion policies for the social good.
The Social Good
If one wants to live in an orderly society and state, one must obey their laws and customs. We participate in society and 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 others in return. Thus, the social good is society creating an environment where life and well-being can flourish for anyone who obeys its laws and customs correctly. One must establish this fact before we enter into the abortion argument. The preservation of society must be a factor when considering abortion. In this case, the social good must be preserved over the individual.
Dismantling the Pro-Choice Argument
The pro-choice arguments states that a woman has the ability to use her body as she pleases without an external interference impeding her. But does this right extend to all situations? Let’s think about it. Would it be right that society 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 allows this, then society allows people to destroy themselves. And if society allows people to destroy themselves, then society is complicit in people destroying themselves. If society 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 allows for people to destroy lives, then that contradiction cannot be maintained. Society has to choose one or the other. To be legitimate and trusted, society must ensure that it promotes life and well-being instead of death and deterioration. This proves that one does not have the right to use their body as they see fit in society.
How does this relate to the pro-choice argument? It proves that the blanket assertion of a woman having bodily autonomy does not work. If a woman’s use of her body leads to moral dilemmas like the one above, then the pro-choice argument cannot be maintained.
The next question is whether a woman’s bodily autonomy allows society to promote life and well-being instead of death and deterioration. The pro-choice 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, 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 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 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 pro-choice position doesn’t involve death and deterioration.
But the pro-choice activist could give a strong counter-argument that the woman must have the ability to abort a baby when her life is in danger. In circumstances that involve the preservation of life and well-being, this counter-argument would succeed because society must not allow for a woman’s life to be lost in order to deliver a baby. In these rare cases, an abortion should be permissible to save a woman’s life.
Abortion Allows for Deviant Behavior To Flourish
Another objection to abortion is that it doesn’t promote virtuous behavior. A great society must have laws and customs that promote virtue. 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 pro-choice 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. If this behavior is allowed, then wouldn’t it encourage moral vices to flourish? One can surmise that it would.
Society must promote virtuous behavior to preserve and enhance life and well-being. The pro-choice position clearly prevents society from achieving this end because it permits people not to honor contracts or act unscrupulously with impunity.
Abortion Leads To More Irresponsible Considerations
The pro-choice position discriminates against men. The pro-choice argument allows for women to cease being parents of their child but it doesn’t acknowledge whether men have that choice. And often times, 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 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.
Just to be very clear, 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 to 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 wishes to be legitimate and trusted then abortion should be rejected by society except in extreme cases.
Conclusion
Evidently, this demonstrates that abortion leads to society adopting uncouth and unscrupulous practices. When one lives in society, 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. We have maintained that abortion leads to people committing vices with impunity. And we have maintained that abortion leads to more irresponsible behavior being legitimized. Therefore, to maintain an orderly and just society, abortion must be rejected except for extreme cases such as a woman’s life being in danger. Abortion outside of those circumstances is against the social good and must be abolished for that end.
Leave a Reply