The basic idea of the consent argument is that abortion is justified on grounds of personal liberty and bodily autonomy. In other words, since no one is entitled to make use of your body without your consent, and especially not for extended periods, you’re entitled to take steps to prevent this kind of imposition—up to and including killing the person imposing on you.
An obvious example is some kind of aggravated assault like rape. It’s hard to imagine a woman being unjustified in killing a rapist in self-defense.
But getting from justification for killing a rapist, to justification for killing a fetus (Harry), is not as easy as pro-abortionists make out. There are at least four insurmountable hurdles between there and here, and the only way to leap these hurdles is to adopt a sociopathic attitude toward Harry.
Seriously, sociopathic? Poisoning the well much?
You might think I’m being an extremist or alarmist or something by using this term. But I’m using it according to its technical definition:
A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.
You’ll note that’s actually the definition of a psychopath. I understand the terms are generally interchangeable, but that sociopath is now the more accepted one—and I think the better one because it emphasizes the social aspect of the pathology. In any case, this is what I mean when I say the consent argument ends up being sociopathic. I aim to show that if you accept that argument, then you are committed to behaving in a morally perverted, non-empathetic way toward Harry the fetus; and since you think there’s nothing wrong with your actions, you have no remorse either.
This might be hard to swallow, but I really am not trying to be an ass. If you disagree, and you’re a reasonable person who can consider the possibility of being wrong, then at least hear me out.
A slight diversion into the difference between emoting and reasoning
If you think I’m being outrageous or offensive, please let me point out a very important distinction. Being outraged or offended is not the same as being right. You might be right—but you might also be wrong. As they say, the truth can hurt. So I’d ask you to judge my discussion below not by how it makes you feel, but by how good my reasoning is.
That said, I think my position only sounds scandalous because, as a society, we have been brow-beaten into thinking that disapproving of abortion amounts to an attack on women.
But what if it doesn’t? What if the opposite is true, and approving of abortion is tantamount to treating women as sociopaths? Wouldn’t you want to know?
In my experience (I was once pro-abortion), if you put aside emotions and preconceptions to evaluate the evidence as logically as you can, it becomes obvious that the only way to justify abortion is to deny key ethical principles we all want to share. And I think that’s why pro-abortionists choose political correctness as their weapon of choice: it short-circuits real discussion, hiding how the pro-abortion position requires these terrible ethical concessions. I believe pro-abortionists are unable to show their position is reasonable, and so they have to make it politically correct instead—brow-beating abolitionists into submission through emotion and rhetoric.
Now watch closely. There is nothing up my sleeve. I want you to notice that even pointing this out, as I just have, is fodder for the pro-abortionist way of “persuading” others. When I say something like this, many of them will try to show how mean I am being. They will try to characterize me as someone who hates women and views them as nothing more than incubators. (I’m not making this up—see the comments thread on my article on LiveAction News for this exact accusation.)
But I am not trying to be mean. I’m trying to point out what’s going on so we can deal with it, without being blinded by inappropriate feelings of shame or guilt at holding a politically incorrect view. Mind you, even if I am being mean (which I’m not), that doesn’t make me wrong, does it? Oscar Wilde and Winston Churchill are renowned for their mean, right witticisms.
4 reasons the consent argument ends up being sociopathic
Note that I’m taking for granted that Harry is a human being, and that human beings have a right to life. I think both those points are uncontroversial, and in any case I’ve argued for them in the above-linked articles. Pro-abortionists will often concede this, and then use the consent argument to show that it is justifiable to kill Harry anyway—so that’s the context I’m assuming.
The argument is basically that if a woman does not give consent for Harry to impose on her personal liberties and bodily autonomy by occupying her uterus for 9 months, then she is justified in taking any means necessary to prevent him from doing so—which means removing him, which means killing him.
This argument fails for at least 4 reasons:
- It ignores or denies implicit consent
- It requires the use of disproportionate force
- It ignores or denies our social responsibilities toward others in analagous circumstances
- It relies on a non-existent distinction between modes of physical imposition
1. It ignores or denies implicit consent
In nearly all cases, the woman has already given implicit consent to Harry’s imposition, by having sex in the first place. She knows that sex is what gets women pregnant. And she knows that contraceptives are not 100% effective. (Even if she somehow doesn’t know these things, we don’t take ignorance to be an excuse for not accepting the consequences of your actions if you choose to engage in other kinds of risky activities—rather, we think you should have educated yourself properly first.)
But this being the case, it seems quite impossible for her to say she consented to have sex, but did not consent to the consequences of having sex—namely Harry. That is rather like saying that she consented to go joyriding, but not to spend 9 months doing community service after she accidentally drove through a fence. We’d rightly condemn an amoral attitude like that, because it denies obvious social responsibilities.
So given the implicit consent that goes along with having sex, we can see the consent argument fails immediately, with the exception of very rare fringe cases like rape. To deny this is to take an amoral, socially-destructive attitude that could rightly be described as sociopathic. (Note that I’m not saying someone who takes this attitude is a sociopath—only that the attitude is sociopathic.)
2. It requires the use of disproportionate force
I’ve already said a woman is justified in killing a rapist. But what about a less extreme situation, such as being groped? Surely that does not justify lethal force against the perp—nasty as he may be. We’d all agree not every case of abuse or assault permits killing the perpetrator.
This raises the question: is it justifiable to kill someone causing you discomfort and inconvenience (even if severe) for nine months? Is that really a reasonable or proportionate response? If you have been kidnapped, say, and your kidnapper (Pete) has confined you somewhere but otherwise not harmed you, and you believe you will be released again in 9 months, are you justified in killing Pete to escape? It isn’t at all clear to me that it is.
Now before you disagree, think carefully about this. I know it’s natural to have a kind of bravado about these situations. We’re inclined to automatically exaggerate our own rights, and our own willingness to assert those rights in hypothetical situations. But as you may know from events in your own life, when push comes to shove we are actually much less assertive than we pretend we’d be. We tend to back down and feel the infringement on our rights is not as important as we built it up to be in our minds.
So let me ask you honestly: can you really see yourself taking a machete and hacking Pete to death in order to escape? (Most abortions involve a similar kind of physical destruction of the fetus.) Or would you think, when given the opportunity, that only a sociopath could actually go through with it?
The importance of intent
Perhaps you’re unconvinced so far. Maybe you think you would hack Pete up, and be justified about it. So let’s go further now, by talking about how intent strongly affects what kind of response is appropriate to an imposition on our rights or autonomy.
In the examples I’ve suggested so far, Pete is intentionally imposing on your body, while you have done nothing at all to bring on the imposition. But what if he were imposing unintentionally? And what if it were your intentional action that had caused his unintentional imposition? What if, through no fault of his own, he was unaware of what he was doing and helpless to prevent it, while you had caused the problem in the first place? Would you still feel justified in killing him?
Surely not. Surely someone who could do such a thing without remorse would rightly be considered sociopathic? Even in a situation where the imposition was brought about by a third party doing something awful to you, it’s obviously not right to kill Pete in response—he is as much a victim as you are. As the old saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Yet some pro-abortionists are adamant, almost vindictive, about killing Pete. I wonder if, as with the prisoner’s dilemma on the ferries in The Dark Knight, they are all talk. If Harry were another adult, or a child, thrust helplessly into the situation, would they really be able to kill him to defend their bodily autonomy and personal liberty? I think very few people really would—at least, I hope the pro-abortionists’ bark is worse than their bite, because if not they actually are sociopaths.
3. It ignores or denies our social responsibilities toward others in analagous circumstances
Although the problems I’ve discussed so far are pretty damned problematical, I think this one trumps them all. Yet it is largely glossed over by pro-abortionists.
Let me give an example. Imagine you’re in a plane, and you crash on a desert island. The only other survivor of the crash is a baby.
It seems extremely clear that although you have not consented to look after this baby—indeed, it is a significant imposition given your limited supplies and lack of preparation—you are nonetheless under an obligation to do so simply by being put into that situation. We would unequivocally condemn you if, instead of caring for the baby, you left it out in the sun to die of exposure or starvation. That is unquestionably sociopathic behavior. And we would especially condemn you if you took a machete and hacked the baby to pieces, or drowned it in the sea, arguing that you were justified in doing so because you had not consented to look after the child.
Now, if even a stranger has a responsibility to a child that cannot fend for itself, how much more does its own mother have such a duty when it is even less able to fend for itself? To deny this maternal duty seems plainly sociopathic—an ethical price so high that if you pay it to claim that abortion is “ethical”, your claim ends up saying nothing like what we take it to mean on face value.
4. It relies on a non-existent distinction between modes of physical imposition
Why is it unacceptable for a woman to be imposed on via direct physical means, such as a fetus living inside her (or Judith Jarvis Thompson’s violinist being grafted onto her), but not via indirect means, such as having to prepare meals for her child, work to provide for him, drive him from place to place, care for him when he is sick, and so on? Both are obvious impositions on her personal liberty and her bodily autonomy. (Indeed, doesn’t the latter sound very much like indentured servitude?)
You may say the difference in the case of pregnancy is that she has no other recourse. Once Harry is born she can adopt him out, or have willing family members help her, etc. But my desert island analogy seems to put paid to that idea. It’s not permissible to kill someone just because you can’t fob your responsibility off on another person.
You may say the difference in the case of post-partum children is that, by consenting to give birth, the mother implicitly consents to everything which follows—even things like terrible diseases where she will be forced to give up great personal liberties and bodily autonomy for Harry’s sake. But this response immediately backfires by conceding my previous argument #1: that by consenting to have sex, the woman implicitly consents to everything which follows, including Harry’s conception. You can’t eat your cake and still have it, too.
And in fringe cases where sex is nonconsensual, the desert island analogy comes into play again. If non-consent doesn’t justify killing a human being in a similar situation post-partum, why should it justify it in utero?
We should reject the consent argument because it makes mothers into sociopaths
I think just one of the problems I’ve raised is alone sufficient to show how the consent argument is sociopathic. But when we combine them we get an insurmountable cumulative case. Rather than justifying a woman in killing Harry, the argument actually condemns her. To kill him because she does not consent to him “occupying her body” clearly qualifies as sociopathic behavior.
In all the analogies pro-abortionists give, the perpetrator is acting maliciously (sometimes by proxy, as in the violinist argument) toward a woman who did nothing to merit his actions against her. But even if this were accurate, killing him seems a staggeringly disproportionate response—it isn’t reasonable force at all. Yet in the vast majority of pregnancies, the “perp” is in fact acting helplessly toward a woman precisely because she caused him to do so! And moreover, she is not simply “a woman” and he is not simply “a perp”—rather, she is his mother and he is her child, with all the duties and responsibilities that entails. Denying these maternal duties, far from being enlightened and freeing, seems sociopathic. And finally, since there’s no obvious moral difference between a fetus imposing on a woman’s autonomy and liberties, and a toddler doing so, the consent argument implies that a woman is justified in killing her toddler for the same reasons as having an abortion.