The Irony of "Pro-Woman" Pro-Choicers

Here is how supporting abortion is, in principle, anti-woman.

The pro-choice position is laced with absurdities and typically includes contradictions with the pro-choicer’s own worldview. One of the most glaring errors is found among abortion defenders who believe that the pro-abortion position is a pro-woman position. In reality, that is far from the truth.

The natural orientation of a woman is the generation and nurturing of children. This intrinsic reality is the most rudimentary way to grasp womanhood and how it is manifested.

This is not to say that women are purely their ability to reproduce. That reductionist account would fail to consider how a woman is of the rational kind. The sexual distinction is primarily understood through how one is designed to participate in procreation, but people have intrinsic ends that extend well beyond reproduction. This, of course, is as true for men as it is for women.

Now, pro-choicers often argue that their position is pro-woman because it enables women to choose to kill their own children. Of course, they typically package this in a rhetorically friendlier way, using euphemisms such as “the choice over one’s own body.” This is far from a fair representation of the situation, as abortion is the direct, intentional killing of an unborn child. If one could make a strong case for a political position by simply appealing to choice as a good in itself, then any position could have merit. However, some choices, like this one, are untenable.

The supposed pro-woman person who defends the abortion position is, in principle, making an argument that is anti-woman. Remember, the natural distinction of womanhood is most fundamentally understood by her orientation toward bearing children, as briefly discussed above. The pro-choicer is advocating for women to be able to kill their children at the stage of development where the baby is most intimately intertwined with the mother’s body. This is the stage of a woman’s life where, at the most basic level, driven by the sexual distinction, her being is ordered.

Therefore, in principle, pro-choicers are arguing for the ability of women to put a perverted end to what most fundamentally makes a woman a woman. It is perverted because it is not the fulfillment of what pregnancy is directed toward, that being the birth of a healthy baby. Instead, it is an invasive process that kills a mother’s unborn child and forces the now-dead baby from the womb. Simply put, to procure an abortion is to work directly against the intrinsic directiveness of the mother that is guiding the pregnancy.

While this ironic absurdity is useful to point out, I would not base an entire argument on it. After all, while this discussion reveals another erroneous and problematic view held by pro-choicers, the child losing their life is a more severe evil and requires less philosophical groundwork to define.

At the very least, if you have not already, be confident in the fact that the pro-life position is the pro-woman position. Most of these pro-choicers could not tell you what a woman is, but if they could, it would be impossible for their argument to be pro-woman.