This pro-choice argument starts well but fails hard

Recently, on stream, a pro-choicer came up and gave a bodily autonomy argument that immediately elevated itself amongst the many I have heard. This was due to how the interlocutor answered one of my questions: how do we know one has a right to bodily autonomy? Would it be the typical “you will have to take my word for it,” which is to say, it is just apparent to me? To my chagrin, the answer, and I am paraphrasing here, grounded the right to bodily autonomy in what is necessary for an individual's happiness. While I appreciated this stance for reflecting our natural tendency towards happiness, which explains the aims of human action in general, I was sure to demonstrate how even this argument fails. The argument itself is better than most I hear because it grasps this vital aspect of our reality, the finality built into our being. However, this ordering of the right to happiness would turn out to make it ever more apparent that abortion is no moral entitlement.

Conflicting Principles

Let us consider a typical abortion case that involves a healthy mother and a healthy unborn baby, where the mother electively aborts the child. Allow for the principle of bodily autonomy, the ability to self-govern, to be violated when a woman is denied an abortion. I hold that no such violation occurs in this case, but this will be discussed in the next section. Are there any other principles that one violates when committing an abortion? The most obvious one is the killing of a child who ought not to be killed. No matter what the woman involved says on the matter, she will be ending the life of her child for reasons that would be unacceptable if the child existed outside of the womb. Consider the two most common reasons that individuals procure abortions. One is family planning, which is a highly euphemistic way to describe exterminating your children to position yourself more in line with a desired life outcome. Two is birth control, which is not only perverted because, in principle, birth control frustrates the sexual act but also because a child is already created and killing her is a confused application of the principle. These two reasons alone certainly would never justify killing a child who is outside the womb. While one derives the force of their argument from bodily autonomy, the most common reasons for getting an abortion are violations of other appreciated principles, namely, don’t slaughter your child because you don’t want them to exist.

Let us proceed with the conversation with the interlocutor that sparked this reflection. She was willing to concede that a mother aborting her baby is wrong, violating what would be just treatment of the child, as we reasoned above for ourselves. Unfortunately, she still believed abortion should be acceptable because bodily autonomy was being “violated.” The question now must be raised: if the principle of bodily autonomy is violated, as well as a principle that governs what is just killing or, specifically, in this case, how a mother ought to treat a child, then which carries more weight? If killing a child is more essential, then abortion could never be allowed, and vice versa, with the concept of bodily autonomy. To fully understand this question, we must grasp why these principles exist in the first place. Both, to their core, if they are to be valid, must be in line with the natural tendency towards happiness. Which is to say, if they do not work towards a person’s flourishing, then they would not be principles worth considering. Remember, my interlocutor agreed that happiness is the end that validates or grounds a principle. However, how do we know which principle is more destructive with respect to our inclination to be happy?

I will propose a reductio ad absurdum that demonstrates how the killing of your child is a greater evil than some bodily autonomy infringement. Consider a mother with her child in a location without social services or family members who could care for her child. You could imagine a mother temporarily snowed in or maybe recovering from a hurricane. Would it follow that she is not obligated to care for the child because she is the only one who may do so? Of course not, the obligation, or what she should do, is to care for her baby. Now, consider that the baby required breast milk from her mother to survive, and if she did not provide it, the baby would die. Obviously, the mother ought to let the baby breastfeed. If she did not, and the baby consequentially died, then the mother would be viewed as intentionally neglectful, having acted in a morally wrong way when she denied her breastmilk to her child. In this situation, the position that bodily autonomy would justify allowing you to let your child die is untenable. I want to briefly address the most common refutation to this scenario. From my reasoning, some will conclude that if you are the sole person who needs something from someone to live, then someone is obligated to give it to you. However, this blatantly disregards key real features of the world, including teleology and the importance of relationships between humans. Neither will be explained further here as they are not essential for the present point. What is most crucial is that in the case presented above, one would be committing a greater wrong in the denial of their breastmilk and/or general care than any account of wrong due to a so-called bodily autonomy violation.

At this point, most pro-lifers are willing to accept this exchange as progress towards convincing the interlocutor to support the pro-life position. Some might falsely assume that the discussion is entirely over. While significant ground has been made, and there is a good chance the interlocutor is now pro-life, there are still necessary considerations on the table. Even though it has been shown that one should not kill their unborn child, this “sacred bodily autonomy” violation is still looming over our heads. Remember, up until now, we have assumed that one’s bodily autonomy may possibly be violated during pregnancy. If you are being violated in a fundamental way that denies you a “right,” a plausible political argument likely exists to protect that entitlement. But of course, this is not the case when a legitimate authority stops you from killing your child in the womb. Furthermore, bodily autonomy, as commonly espoused by pro-choicers, is almost all but a myth. Let us proceed with our considerations about bodily autonomy to understand if it finds itself grounded in our world.

The Ruse of Bodily Autonomy

Bodily autonomy concerns the mother’s ability to self-govern. I take it to be different from a conceived notion of bodily integrity, which is rooted in what it fundamentally means to be whole or complete. However, this is outside the scope of this article. Let us now address the fundamental assumption in the previous section: bodily autonomy is needed to secure human flourishing.

Does human flourishing require the utmost power to do whatever act is necessary, even that which is found in the depths of degeneracy or perverts what is intelligible as good? Certainly not. For example, having the power to end your own life would, if actualized, not result in human flourishing but rather in the death of the being. Or consider having the ability to abuse the worst of drugs. Being in the sprawl of addiction is not in accord with what it means to be in a state of fulfillment. Nor would it be reasonable to assume that allowing a mother to kill her sleeping infant would work towards her happiness. Therefore, having the power to commit the maximum number of actions is not a requirement for human flourishing. On the contrary, it seems that restrictions ought to be in place to protect yourself from self-destruction. How might we understand the “self-government” aspect of bodily autonomy? Consider someone who is not able to play a role in their government. Does it follow that they are now unable to flourish? This is clearly false; if the government does everything just and good with respect to you, then they will not limit your own flourishing.

We have attacked the basic antecedent premises of liberalism, which is the foundation of any sort of bodily autonomy argument. Liberalism holds that man ought to be free from his natural environment, his political community, and, as we see in the transhumanist movement, even the operating principles that govern one’s nature. However, the true aim of all valid principles that both the interlocutor and I accept is human happiness. Human happiness is not achieved through maximizing one’s ability to do whatever one desires. To pull from a previous example, it is not necessary for human flourishing to have the ability to do hard-core drugs, and it can be assumed to be counterproductive. Thus, maximizing one’s autonomy over one's actions does not in itself achieve the intended aim, human happiness, nor is a conception of self-government necessary for human flourishing.

The depths of the erroneous placement of bodily autonomy extend further. Society is not simply a construct of man but is a natural place where he finds himself. From trading to finding love to enjoying the arts to relying on others for food and water, the importance of community is undeniable when considering human action. It then follows that man being dependent on community necessitates a flourishing community for man to flourish. If the community suffers, then man would suffer. Man being a social animal by virtue of his own nature proves this point to be obviously true.

None of this is to say that man should not be free. Any suggestion that I have said the contrary will have been purely imagined by the reader and find its basis nowhere in this text. I find it imperative that, within reason, man be as free as possible. The ruse of bodily autonomy is that its liberal conception is necessary for man to be fulfilled. However, a man may simultaneously benefit from guard rails that protect his freedom and the roadblocks that stop him from committing evil. It is conceivable that a society exists that protects an individual’s freedom while being ordered to the common good. Bodily autonomy grants entitlements for wrongs that frustrate the end that all human action is directed towards: happiness. Thus, bodily autonomy, as pro-choicers commonly understand it, is flawed and fails to justify an action by itself, most certainly not abortion.