What Does It Mean To Be Pro-Choice?
Introduction
In the debate over abortion, the question of a fetus's right to life versus a woman's right to control her own body is at the heart of the matter. But what if we examine the issue from a different perspective, one that frames the debate in terms of consent?
Consider the following perspective on abortion, made popular by the prominent atheist and skeptic Matt Dillahunty: no human being has the right to use another human being's body without their explicit and ongoing consent, under any circumstances whatsoever. This principle is foundational to our understanding of personal autonomy, bodily integrity, and individual liberty. Now, let us apply this principle to the case of an unborn, unviable fetus - a being that may or may not be considered a human being. It is undeniable that the fetus requires the use of the mother's body in order to live and survive. Without the mother's bodily resources, the fetus cannot grow and develop, let alone be born into the world.
But what if the mother does not consent to the use of her body in this way? What if she chooses not to carry the pregnancy to term, for whatever reason? What if the fetus inside the womb is in fact, a sentient person, who can sense, feel, and is self-aware, pleading for it's life thusly, "Please let me live! Please let me be born!" From a pro-choice perspective, even this scenario, the fetus does not have the right to use the pregnant person's body without the pregnant person's consent, regardless of the fetus's humanity or personhood or the fact that a sentient, self-aware entity will die as a result of not using the pregnant person's body. In essence, this means that a woman's right to control her own body, to decide what happens to it and who uses it, is more fundamental than any potential right to life that a fetus may possess. While this argument may be controversial, it is based on a deeply-held principle of personal autonomy and self-determination, and it deserves careful consideration and respect.
We however, are in the business of criticism rather than blind respect. In that regard, the pro-choice point of view can withstand the highest level of critical scrutiny and welcomes any challenge to itself fearlessly. In fact, the pro-choice position is founded on a rigorous logical and ethical framework that is based on the principles of bodily autonomy, privacy, and equality. The pro-choice argument recognizes that every woman has the right to make her own moral and medical decisions, free from coercion or judgment. It acknowledges that every pregnancy is unique and that no one can fully understand or judge the circumstances and reasons behind a woman's decision to have an abortion.
Moreover, the pro-choice position acknowledges that a fetus is a potential human being, with the capacity to become a sentient and conscious individual, but also recognizes that this potentiality does not confer a right to use another person's body without their consent. The pro-choice position also takes into account the unequal burden of pregnancy and childbirth on women, who face not only physical risks and challenges but also social and economic barriers that can affect their health, well-being, and future prospects. It recognizes that denying women access to safe and legal abortion services does not reduce the number of abortions but only increases the harm and injustice to women and families.
The pro-choice perspective aligns closely with the principles of secular humanism, which emphasize reason, ethics, equality, and justice, focusing on the well-being of humans rather than adherence to religious doctrine. Secular humanism champions individual autonomy, personal freedom, and the right to make decisions for oneself based on personal ethics and reason. Under this framework, the pro-choice stance on abortion is an embodiment of these secular humanist values, asserting that a woman's right to control her body and make decisions about her pregnancy is paramount. It emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, bodily integrity, and individual liberty, values deeply ingrained in secular humanism. This perspective sees the decision about whether to carry a pregnancy to term as a deeply personal and ethical choice, one that should be made free from religious or governmental interference. In this way, the pro-choice perspective not only advocates for women's rights and bodily autonomy but also reflects a broader commitment to secular humanist ideals, which prioritize human welfare and ethical reasoning. This stance, however, stands in stark contrast to the Islamic perspective on abortion, which is guided by religious doctrines that stigmatize a person's right to choose.
Defining Abortion
Abortion is the purposeful and deliberate ending of a pregnancy. This is done by removing the fetus or embryo from the uterus, which stops its development and leads to the termination of the pregnancy. The process of abortion can be carried out through different medical procedures, such as medication abortion, aspiration abortion, or dilation and evacuation. The reason for seeking an abortion can vary from woman to woman, and may include medical, personal, or socio-economic factors. It is important to note that abortion is a legal and safe medical procedure that can be a necessary option for some women in certain circumstances.
The definition of abortion from Harvard Medical School clearly states that it is the removal of pregnancy tissue, products of conception or the fetus and placenta (afterbirth) from the uterus. This definition focuses on the physical procedure of abortion, rather than making any moral or ethical judgments about it.
It is important to note that the definition does not use language that suggests that abortion is murder or that it involves taking a life. In fact, it is wholly unconcerned about the potential humanity of the fetus. This is because the definition is based on medical and scientific terminology, which seeks to describe the biological process that occurs during an abortion.
Abortion is the removal of pregnancy tissue, products of conception or the fetus and placenta (afterbirth) from the uterus. In general, the terms fetus and placenta are used after eight weeks of pregnancy. Pregnancy tissue and products of conception refer to tissue produced by the union of an egg and sperm before eight weeks.
Islam and Abortion
The Islamic Fatwa on abortion is divided into two stages: before and after the soul (ruh) enters the fetus, which, according to Islamic belief, occurs at 120 days (approximately 4 months) after conception. This timeframe is established based on Quranic verses and Hadith.
After the soul enters the fetus, abortion is considered utterly unlawful and equivalent to murder. This strict prohibition reflects the high value placed on human life in Islam, irrespective of its stage of development. The scholars have unanimously condemned abortion after this stage, equating it to grave sins such as burying an infant alive. The only exception made is in cases where the mother's life is in certain and absolute danger, based on the juristic principle of choosing the lesser of two evils. Even then, this exception is limited and must be advised by a qualified and experienced Muslim doctor.
Before the soul's entry into the fetus, the ruling on abortion is that it remains generally unlawful (haram), although the degree of sin is lesser than post-120 days. The fetus, though not yet endowed with the soul, is considered part of the mother's body and a trust from Allah. Therefore, aborting it is akin to violating the rights of a human organ entrusted to the mother. It's important to note that the sinfulness of the act doesn't imply it's sin-free but rather less sinful than post-120 days.
Abortion before 120 days is permitted only in extreme circumstances, such as risk to the mother's life or health, rape, or if repeated pregnancies severely damage the mother's health. This dispensation, however, doesn't extend to cases where the pregnancy results from unlawful sexual relations, as the embryonic life is still considered sacred.
In contrast, the pro-choice perspective, as will be elucidated below, centers on the principles of personal autonomy and bodily integrity, arguing that no one, including a fetus, has the right to use another person's body without that person's explicit and ongoing consent. From this viewpoint, the question of when the fetus is ascribed to personhood (or when the soul enters according to Islam) is entirely irrelevant.
The Pro-Choice Argument
The idea that someone else knows better than a person about what to do with their own body is not only ridiculous, it's dangerous. It's a way of controlling people and denying them their basic rights. Forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term against their will is not only inhumane, it is reproductive coercion.
It is essential to acknowledge that no person has the right to use someone else's body without their explicit consent, regardless of the circumstances. This principle holds true for pregnant individuals, who must be empowered to make decisions about their own bodies and lives. The idea that the rights of an unborn, unviable fetus should supersede those of the person carrying it is fundamentally flawed and unacceptable.
While there may be debate about when a fetus becomes a human being, what is clear is that it requires the body of its mother to survive. Even if we assume that the fetus has some level of personhood or humanity, it does not grant it the right to use the mother's body without her consent. The mother's decision to terminate a pregnancy is a personal and complex one, and it is not up to anyone else to make that decision for her.
Anti-choice views seek to deny pregnant individuals the right to make their own choices about their bodies and lives, often based on religious or moral beliefs that are not universally shared. This is a violation of personal autonomy and reproductive freedom. We must uphold the principle that every person has the right to make informed decisions about their own health and well-being, free from coercion or judgment. This includes the right to access safe and legal abortion care, if and when they choose to do so.
Let us now examine the pro-choice argument in it's syllogistic form, and see if we can spot any logical fallacies-
Premise 1- No person with the right to life has the additional right to use another human being’s body without that human being’s consent, under any circumstances whatsoever.
Premise 2- The unborn, unviable fetus may or may not be a person with the right to life.
Premise 3- The unborn, unviable fetus requires the use of the mother’s body in order to live and survive.
Premise 4- The mother does not consent to the use of their body by the fetus, who may or may not be a person, and who will die as a result of nor being able to use the mother's body.
Conclusion- The unborn, unviable fetus does not have the right to use the mother’s body, given the fact that the mother has not consented to childbirth and regardless of the fetus’s right to life or the fact that the fetus will die as a result of the mother's choice.
The conclusion is logically valid and sound based on the given premises.
Bodily Autonomy
What is autonomy? Autonomy is the capacity to think, decide, and act on the basis of such thought and decision freely and independently of external or internal controlling influences. It is based on the principle that one’s actions are one’s own, that one has the ability to act on the basis of reasons that are part of one’s own identity and life history, and that one’s actions are consistent with this identity and history.
Autonomy is a fundamental principle in human ethics. Autonomy is the ability to make one's own decisions and act on them, free from external or internal influences. It requires that one's actions are consistent with one's own identity and life history, and that one has the ability to act on the basis of reasons that are part of this identity and history. In other words, autonomy is about being self-governing and having control over one's own life.
Bodily autonomy is a right granted to every person to have the right to control what are the things to be or not done to their own bodies. When each person has full bodily autonomy, they’re not only empowered to decide things when it comes to their health and future – without constraints or any control by other people – they also have the support and resources that are needed to eloquently carry out all the decisions they would make.
((Human Rights Media- What is Bodily Autonomy?))
Bodily autonomy means my body is for me; my body is my own. It’s about power, and it’s about agency. It’s about choice, and it’s about dignity.?Bodily autonomy is the foundation for gender equality, and above all, it’s a fundamental right.
((United Nations Population Fund- Bodily Autonomy: A Fundamental Right))
Bodily autonomy is the simple but radical concept that individuals have the right to control what does and does not happen to our bodies.?When we have full bodily autonomy, not only are we empowered to make decisions about our health and future – without coercion or control by others – we also have the support and resources needed to meaningfully carry out these decisions.
((Positive Women's Network- Bodily Autonomy: A Framework Guide To Our Future))
Informed Consent
Informed consent is an essential aspect of respecting bodily autonomy, as it recognizes a person's right to make decisions about their own body and medical care. This includes the right to say no to any medical treatment or procedure, including the use of one's body to sustain another life.
Respecting a person's right to informed consent is important because it acknowledges their individual autonomy and allows them to exercise their own values and beliefs in relation to their body and health. Without informed consent, people can be subjected to medical procedures and treatments that they may not want, which can result in a loss of control and a violation of their bodily autonomy.
Informed consent in abortion services refers to the process through which a woman is provided with information, in a manner and language she can understand, about the nature and consequences of the procedure she is about to undergo. Firstly, she should be informed that terminating her pregnancy is indeed an option. She should also informed about the potential risks, benefits, and alternatives to the procedure, including carrying the pregnancy to term. This process is designed to enable a woman to make a voluntary and informed choice to undergo the procedure.
Informed consent is also integral to elective abortion, where abortion is not medically necessary. Given that elective abortion is not a medical necessity, a woman's right to choose to undergo the procedure is premised upon her autonomous decision-making, which in turn requires that she be given accurate and complete information about the nature and consequences of the procedure and that her consent be obtained freely and without coercion.
In the context of the abortion debate, this means that women have the right to make their own decisions about their pregnancy and their body. They have the right to choose whether or not to carry a fetus to term and give birth, as this is a decision that can have significant physical, emotional, and social consequences for the person involved. By acknowledging the importance of informed consent, we can ensure that individuals have the power to make choices about their own bodies and health, and that they are not subject to decisions made by others without their input or agreement.
Personhood is Irrelevant
Viability and personhood are two different concepts that are often raised in abortion debate. Viability refers to the point in a pregnancy when a fetus has developed to the point where it can potentially survive outside the womb with medical assistance. In contrast, personhood refers to the moral and legal status of an entity as a rights-bearing member of the moral community. While the concept of viability is objective and can be measured based on medical criteria, the concept of personhood is subjective and can vary based on cultural, religious, and philosophical beliefs.
Mary Anne Warren, a feminist scholar and advocate of abortion rights defines personhood according to five criteria: consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, the capacity to communicate, and the presence of self-awareness. These criteria are often used to determine whether a being is a moral and legal person or not, and they are often used in debates about abortion and other moral issues. ((Mokaya, S. (2021). Moral Personhood in the Context of Abortion: An Examination of Mary Anne Warren?s Perspective, p.21)) It is important to note however, that there is no consensus on the criterion for personhood, and the matter of "personhood" is arbitrary rather than absolute.
While viability is a clear and objective criterion for determining the point at which a fetus can potentially survive outside the womb, it does not necessarily confer personhood. A fetus that is viable may still lack some or all of the criteria for personhood, while a fetus that is not yet viable may still possess some or all of these criteria. This is why the concept of personhood is often a more controversial and subjective criterion in the abortion debate than viability.
Pro-choice advocates such as Judith Jarvis Thomson, and Matt Dillahunty, on the other hand, argues that even if the fetus is a person, this fact does not give it the right to use someone else's body without their consent. Dillahunty's argument is based on the idea of bodily autonomy and equal rights for all individuals. He maintains that no one has the right to use another person's body without their consent, regardless of whether that person is a person or not.
The bottom line is that even if we granted that a fetus is a person, the mother carrying that fetus is still a person, too. And she has the right to make decisions about her own body and health, even if those decisions conflict with what others might consider the interests of the fetus. The right to bodily autonomy is a fundamental right, and it must be respected for all individuals, regardless of their age or status as a person.
It is deeply frustrating to see the anti-choice crowd repeatedly attempt to derail discussions about abortion by labeling the fetus as a "person with the right to life." The right of the fetus to live is irrelevant to the right of the mother to choose, as the most important factor is the bodily autonomy of the pregnant person.
Viability is Obsolete
The traditional conception of viability in the context of abortion has been one of the most critical and yet contentious aspects of the entire debate. Viability, as it's generally understood, refers to the point in pregnancy when the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, a standard that has been historically pegged around 24 weeks of gestation. This marker has long been used as a benchmark for determining the legal and ethical permissibility of abortions. However, the idea of a fixed standard of viability, as the sole determinant of when abortion is permissible, not only oversimplifies a complex issue but becomes increasingly untenable when we consider the rapid advancements in medical technology and our evolving understanding of human biology.
As used by the medical profession, the term, "Abortion" denotes the termination of pregnancy before the fetus has attained viability, i.e, become capable of extra-uterine life. Viability is usually defined in terms of duration of pregnancy and/or weight of the fetus, or occasionally length of the fetus.
((World Health Organization, Technical Report Series, Spontaneous and Induced Abortion, Report of a WHO Scientific Group))
The above definition from the WHO clearly places a limit on abortion; the limit being viability, which is defined exclusively in terms of fetal survivability. It is to be emphasized that fetal survivability is not to be confused with the quality of humanity or personhood of the viable fetus. Any abortions that happen after the fetus has reached viability are not abortions, but rather, live deliveries. This definition from the WHO while practical for our current day -to-day use is nevertheless problematic for a number of reasons.
Consider for example, a scenario where humanity as a species has technologically advanced enough to the point where we have the capability to essentially live-deliver a one-minute old fertilized egg, whether it has been implanted in the uterus or else washed out during menstruation. This presents us with two different scenarios,
领英推荐
Scenario#1, where the viable fertilized egg is inside the mother's body
Scenario#2 where the viable fertilized egg is not inside the mother's body.
In both scenarios, that minute old fertilized egg is viable i.e., capable of extra-uterine life owing to technology. Now the question arises: do the principles of bodily autonomy hold true in each scenario, and what would abortions look like , and how abortion would be defined in a world where we could live deliver a minute-old fertilized egg?
Scenario#1- The minute old fertilized egg is inside the mother's body and we have the technology to live-deliver the minute-old fertilized egg. However, the mother does not want to reproduce. How would "abortion" look like and how would it be defined?
In Scenario #1, the principle of bodily autonomy still applies because the fertilized egg is inside the mother's body and dependent on it. The pregnant person has the right to decide whether or not to undergo a procedure to live-deliver the fertilized egg.
Abortion, in this scenario, would be redefined as the termination of a pregnancy without necessarily terminating the life of the fertilized egg. It would involve the live delivery of the fertilized egg using the available technology. The decision to live-deliver the fertilized egg would still rest on the pregnant person, who has the right to choose what happens to their body.
However, the question of whether or not to terminate the "life" of the viable, minute-old fertilized egg becomes more complex in this scenario. If the pregnant person does not want to reproduce and decides to undergo the procedure to live-deliver the fertilized egg, they have effectively terminated their pregnancy without terminating the life of the fetus, but have nonetheless reproduced against their will. Furthermore, if the "life" of the viable, minute-old fertilized egg is not terminated but is rather considered sacred, it implies that every fertilized egg deserves a chance at life. This stance raises several issues:
Furthermore, by not allowing the termination of the "life" of the fertilized egg in Scenario #1, the notion of parenthood as a choice becomes impossible. In cases where the pregnant person does not want to be a parent but is unable to terminate the life of the fertilized egg, they would be faced with an unwanted responsibility. This could potentially lead to negative consequences for both the parent and the child, such as emotional and financial strain, and a lack of proper care and nurturing for the child. It is essential to recognize that the decision to become a parent should be a matter of choice, taking into account the best interests of the pregnant person, the potential parent(s), and the child.
Viability, in this sense, becomes a variable condition, highly dependent on the capabilities of medical technology, rather than a fixed point in fetal development. This redefinition underscores that viability is not a static, unchanging biological fact but a condition that is fluid and susceptible to change based on technological advancements.
This new paradigm forces us to reconsider the very foundation on which many abortion laws and ethical arguments are based. The legal and moral permissibility of abortion, when tied to a shifting concept like viability, becomes a moving target. Such a fluid understanding of viability makes the idea of establishing a fixed gestational age as a threshold for lawful abortion appear increasingly arbitrary and, in some respects, even absurd. The concept of limiting abortion based on viability becomes problematic because it no longer reflects a clear-cut, universally applicable biological reality, but instead, a variable condition dependent on external factors like medical technology.
Furthermore, the expanded technological capacity to sustain life at increasingly earlier stages of development challenges the way we think about reproductive rights and responsibilities. If every fertilized egg, regardless of how early in the gestational process, is deemed viable, the implications are vast and multifaceted. It stretches the boundaries of what it means to have the right to choose, as the choice to terminate a pregnancy doesn’t necessarily equate to the choice to end a potential life. In such a landscape, where the biological process of pregnancy can be externalized, the essence of the abortion debate shifts from a discussion about ending a potential life to one about the right to refuse the use of one's body for reproductive purposes.
This reconfiguration also raises ethical and societal dilemmas. If technology allows every fertilized egg the potential for life, it forces us to confront difficult questions about overpopulation, the ethics of discarding fertilized eggs, and the right to reproductive autonomy. It further blurs the lines between abortion, contraception, and assisted reproductive technologies, complicating our understanding of where one's bodily autonomy ends and where the responsibility towards a potential life begins.
Anti-Choice Hypocrisy
One of the most frustrating aspects of the anti-choice movement is their inconsistency when it comes to valuing human life. On one hand, they decry abortion as murder, even in cases where the pregnancy is a result of rape, incest, or poses a threat to the life of the mother. Yet on the other hand, many of these same individuals will support the choice of organ donors to not donate their organs even to save another life.
It's an unfortunate reality that there are not enough organs available for those in need of transplants. According to the United Network for Organ Sharing, during the time of writing this article, approximately over 104,056 people in the United States are currently waiting for an organ transplant, and 17 people die each day waiting for a transplant that never comes. ((United Network for Organ Sharing- Data and Trends)) ((United Network for Organ Sharing- Organ Donation Statistics)) This makes the choice to become an organ donor a powerful one, as it can literally mean the difference between life and death for someone else.
However, despite the pressing need for organ donors, it's not uncommon for people to choose not to donate their organs after they die. This choice may be based on personal or religious beliefs, fear, or a lack of understanding about the donation process. And while it's certainly their right to make this decision, it's hypocritical for those who oppose abortion to support this choice while decrying the choice of a woman to terminate a pregnancy.
At its core, the issue of abortion is about bodily autonomy and the right to make decisions about one's own body. Just as it's unfair to force someone to donate their organs against their will, it's equally unfair to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. Both situations involve complex ethical and moral considerations, but ultimately the choice should be left up to the individual who is most affected by it.
In the end, it's important to recognize that supporting the right to choose when it comes to organ donation and supporting the right to choose when it comes to abortion are not mutually exclusive. Both involve respecting a person's autonomy and their ability to make decisions about their own body. It's time for those in the anti-choice movement to acknowledge this inconsistency and embrace a more nuanced approach to valuing human life.
Premise 1: Those who oppose abortion do not oppose the choice of organ donors to not donate their organs, even if a person dies as a result of not donating.
Premise 2: Those who oppose abortion oppose the choice of women to terminate their pregnancies, based on the belief that a fetus is a person that will die as a result of the termination.
Premise 3: Inconsistency is defined as a situation in which two beliefs, statements, or actions are incompatible or contradictory.
Conclusion: Therefore, the anti-choice view on supporting the autonomy of organ donors but not mothers is inconsistent, since it involves supporting the right of one group to make decisions about their own bodies while opposing the same right for another group.
The syllogism starts with two premises that describe the views of those who oppose abortion. Premise 1 indicates that they do not oppose the choice of organ donors to not donate their organs, even if it results in death. Premise 2 indicates that they oppose the choice of women to terminate their pregnancies, based on their belief that a fetus is a person that will die as a result.
The third premise defines inconsistency as a situation in which two things are incompatible or contradictory. The conclusion then follows logically from the premises: if opposing one group's right to make decisions about their own bodies while supporting the other group's right to do the same is incompatible and contradictory, then supporting the autonomy of organ donors but not mothers is inconsistent.
Overall, the syllogism is valid and sound, because the conclusion logically follows from the premises and the definition of inconsistency provided in premise 3.
The anti-choice movement's inconsistency in valuing human life, as exemplified in their opposition to a woman's right to choose while simultaneously supporting the autonomy of organ donors, reveals their true agenda: controlling women's bodies. It's clear that their stance is not rooted in a genuine concern for human life, but rather a desire to limit women's autonomy and control their reproductive decisions.
If those who oppose abortion were truly concerned with protecting life, they would advocate for policies that support the health and well-being of pregnant women and their children, such as access to healthcare, comprehensive sex education, and contraception. However, the anti-choice movement's focus on banning abortion and limiting access to reproductive healthcare services, rather than addressing the root causes of unintended pregnancies and maternal mortality, suggests that their ultimate goal is to control women's bodies and choices.
Furthermore, the anti-choice movement's inconsistent stance on organ donation and abortion reveals a double standard when it comes to bodily autonomy. They support the choice of organ donors to not donate their organs, even if it means that someone else will die, yet they oppose a woman's right to make decisions about her own body, even if it means that her life is at risk or that she will suffer harm.
The anti-choice movement's inconsistency in valuing human life and supporting bodily autonomy reveals that their opposition to abortion is not about protecting life, but about imposing their beliefs and values on women's bodies. It's time to recognize that reproductive healthcare decisions should be made by individuals in consultation with their healthcare providers, and that women must be trusted to make the best decisions for themselves and their families.
The Violinist Argument
Judith Jarvis Thomson was an American philosopher who made significant contributions to moral philosophy and bioethics. She was a professor of philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is best known for her work in applied ethics, especially her influential paper "A Defense of Abortion," which presents her now-famous violinist argument.
The violinist argument is a thought experiment that Thomson developed to explore the issue of abortion. It involves the scenario of a famous violinist who has been kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers and plugged into your body against your will. The violinist has a rare blood condition and must be attached to your kidneys for nine months to survive. If he is unplugged before that time, he will die. Thomson uses this scenario to argue that even if we assume that a fetus has a right to life, that right does not necessarily trump a pregnant person's right to bodily autonomy. The violinist argument has become a cornerstone of the pro-choice argument, and its impact can still be seen in modern debates surrounding abortion.
In the original argument, Judith Jarvis Thomson asks us to imagine being kidnapped and hooked up, without our consent, to the famous violinist who needs our kidneys for nine months to survive. She then argues that, while it would be admirable for us to stay hooked up to the violinist to save his life, we would not be morally obligated to do so. This is because, while we have a duty to not harm others, we do not have a duty to help others at the expense of our own bodily autonomy.
Similarly, pregnancy and childbirth require a great deal of bodily resources and can pose significant health risks to the pregnant person. Just as we are not obligated to stay hooked up to the violinist, a pregnant person should not be obligated to continue a pregnancy against their will. Pregnancy and childbirth are deeply personal experiences that can affect a person physically, emotionally, and financially, and it is their right to decide whether or not to go through with it.
Furthermore, the violinist argument highlights the importance of consent in medical procedures. Just as we have the right to bodily autonomy and to refuse to be hooked up to the violinist, we have the right to consent to or refuse medical treatments, including abortion. No one should be forced to undergo medical procedures against their will, even if it means saving another person's life.
In the case of pregnancy, the fetus is using the pregnant person's body without their consent. Just as the violinist needs our kidneys to survive, the fetus needs the pregnant person's body to survive. However, just as we have the right to revoke our consent to be hooked up to the violinist, a pregnant person has the right to revoke their consent to continue a pregnancy.
The violinist argument is thus analogous to pregnancy and abortion because it highlights the importance of bodily autonomy, the right to consent to medical procedures, and the right to not be forced to help others at the expense of our own bodily resources. It is a powerful argument in defense of the pro-choice perspective, and it underscores the importance of respecting the bodily autonomy of all individuals. ((Thomson, JJ (1971) A defense of Abortion))
Pregnancy Is Not Equal For Sperm Donors and Pregnant People
Pregnancy is an unequal state of affairs for sperm donors and pregnant people. Pregnant people must deal with the consequences of pregnancy in ways that sperm donors do not. Pregnant people are the ones who carry a growing fetus in their bodies for nine months, experiencing all of the accompanying physical changes, discomfort, and risks that come with it. This is a unique and often challenging experience that sperm donors simply cannot share in.
Because pregnancy takes place within a pregnant person's body, they are the ones who are primarily responsible for its outcome. This is a burden that sperm donors do not have to bear. Pregnant people must navigate difficult decisions about whether or not to continue a pregnancy, and they must live with the consequences of those decisions for the rest of their lives. Sperm donors, on the other hand, are not held to the same level of accountability or responsibility for the outcomes of sexual encounters, including unplanned or unwanted pregnancies.
In addition to the physical burden of pregnancy, pregnant people must also contend with the social and economic inequalities that often accompany it. Pregnant people are often subject to discrimination and stigma, both in the workplace and in their personal lives. They may face obstacles to accessing healthcare, employment, and other essential resources, which can have long-term implications for their health and well-being.
The unequal state of affairs between pregnant people and sperm donors regarding pregnancy extends beyond just gendered and sexual differences. Pregnancy can limit a pregnant person's ability to work or pursue education, and the resulting childcare responsibilities can further limit their opportunities for economic advancement.
An Exercise of Agency
In her article titled "Sex Without Consent" published in The Yale Law Journal, Deborah Tuerkheimer agrees with Jed Rubenfeld that sexual autonomy is not an adequate principle to govern modern rape law. However, Tuerkheimer disagrees with Rubenfeld's conception of rape as a violation of the right to self-possession, arguing that such a conception raises real problems.
Instead, Tuerkheimer proposes an alternative understanding of rape as a violation of sexual agency. This concept acknowledges the exercise of agency under constraints and values women's sexual subjectivity. Tuerkheimer argues that this framework provides a new justification for defining rape as sex without consent.
The right to choose is a fundamental component of reproductive freedom and is essential to women's agency. Pro-choice advocates argue that a woman has the right to make decisions about her own body, including the decision to terminate a pregnancy. This right to choose is grounded in the idea that women should have control over their own lives, and that includes control over their reproductive health.
Deborah Tuerkheimer's work on the relationship between agency and consent provides a useful framework for understanding the right to choose from a pro-choice perspective. Tuerkheimer argues that the concept of consent should be understood as an exercise of agency, rather than autonomy. This means that consent is not simply a matter of individual choice, but is shaped by a range of social, cultural, and political factors that influence the decision-making process.
Similarly, the decision to have an abortion is not simply a matter of individual autonomy, but is an exercise of agency in response to a range of social, cultural, and political factors that shape women's lives. Tuerkheimer contends that autonomy assumes that women have full control over their lives and decision-making processes, which is often not the case. Women's choices are shaped by a variety of factors, including poverty, lack of access to healthcare, and gendered power imbalances. Denial of abortion can be seen as a violation of agency because it restricts women's ability to make decisions about their own lives and bodies. It denies them the ability to exercise their agency in response to the circumstances in which they find themselves.
Furthermore, Tuerkheimer argues that consent is not simply a matter of saying "yes" or "no" to a particular act, but is a process of ongoing negotiation and communication. Similarly, the decision to have an abortion is not simply a matter of saying "yes" or "no" to a particular procedure, but is a process of ongoing negotiation and communication between the woman, her healthcare provider, and the broader social context in which she lives.
In this sense, the right to choose is not simply a matter of individual autonomy, but is an exercise of agency that is embedded in a broader social context. Denial of abortion can be seen as a violation of agency because it restricts women's ability to engage in this process of ongoing negotiation and communication, and denies them the ability to make decisions about their own lives and bodies in response to the circumstances in which they find themselves.
By contrast, an agency-based approach acknowledges the complex social and economic realities that shape women's decision-making processes. Women are not simply autonomous agents making choices in a vacuum; rather, their choices are influenced by a range of factors, including social norms, cultural expectations, and economic constraints. The right to choose recognizes that women must be empowered to make decisions that align with their values and goals, and that denying them this right can have serious consequences for their well-being and agency.
In essence, an agency-based approach emphasizes the importance of recognizing women's diverse experiences and the social and economic factors that shape their lives. It acknowledges that women's choices are not simply a matter of autonomous decision-making, but are rather situated within broader contexts of power and inequality. By recognizing the right to choose as a matter of agency, we can ensure that women have the freedom and resources they need to make choices that align with their values and goals, and that support their overall well-being and agency. ((Tuerkheimer, D. (2013). Sex without Consent. Yale Law Journal Forum, 123, 335.))
Statistics on Abortion: The United States
Abortion Surveillance refers to the tracking and reporting of data on induced abortions, which are procedures that end a pregnancy. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) collects data from 49 reporting areas in the United States and releases annual reports summarizing key findings. The Abortion Surveillance Report for 2020 indicates that a total of 620,327 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas.
The report indicates that the number of abortions decreased by 2%, the abortion rate decreased by 2%, and the abortion ratio increased by 2% from 2019 to 2020. However, over the course of the decade from 2011 to 2020, the number of reported abortions decreased by 15%, the abortion rate decreased by 18%, and the abortion ratio decreased by 9%.
The report notes that in 2020, as in previous years, women in their twenties accounted for more than half of all reported abortions (57.2%). Additionally, the vast majority of abortions in 2020 (93.1%) were performed at 13 weeks of pregnancy or earlier, while a smaller number of abortions (5.8%) were performed between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and an even smaller number (0.9%) were performed at 21 weeks of pregnancy or later.
The report also highlights the increasing use of early medical abortion, which involves the administration of medication(s) to induce an abortion at ≤9 completed weeks’ gestation. In 2020, 51.0% of all reported abortions were early medical abortions, representing a 22% increase from 2019 and a 154% increase from 2011. ((CDCs Abortion Surveillance 2020- Findings and Reports)) This trend is consistent with the current Food and Drug Administration labeling for mifepristone, which was updated in 2016 to allow for earlier use in pregnancy. ((Federal Drug Administration- When did the FDA approve mifepristone for medical termination of pregnancy?))
Based on the information provided, the breakdown of the percentage of abortions according to number of weeks is as follows:
Note: The percentage for ≤9 weeks includes early medical abortions, as defined by the report. The percentages for 10-13 weeks, 14-20 weeks, and ≥21 weeks are based on surgical abortions or other procedures.
Conclusion
The pro-choice position is not merely an alternative viewpoint that seeks recognition within the vast landscape of competing ideologies. It is, at its core, a profound plea for the fundamental right to self-determination—a plea that echoes with the urgency of those whose autonomy is at stake. This is not just about the recognition of a stance; it is about the very essence of what it means to be human, to exist as an agent capable of making choices that shape one’s life, body, and future.
In a world where bodies are continually regulated, disciplined, and controlled, the pro-choice position challenges us to confront the systems that seek to limit our agency. It demands that we acknowledge the importance of the right to choose, not as a mere privilege granted by society, but as an intrinsic aspect of our humanity. This right to self-determination is not a luxury; it is a necessity—an essential element of our existence that allows us to navigate the complex terrain of life with dignity and autonomy.
To deny this right is to deny the very foundation of freedom. It is to strip individuals of their capacity to define their own lives, to impose upon them a narrative not of their own making. The pro-choice movement, therefore, is not just a call for the right to terminate a pregnancy; it is a broader demand for the recognition of the autonomy that belongs to each of us. It is a declaration that our bodies are our own, and the decisions we make about them must be ours alone.
This plea for self-determination is vital because it affirms our right to exist on our own terms, free from the constraints of external control. It is a recognition that in the act of choosing, we assert our humanity, our agency, and our power. And in a world that often seeks to define us by the limitations it imposes, the pro-choice position stands as a powerful reminder that the ability to make choices for ourselves is not just important—it is the very essence of what it means to be free.