All pro-choice arguments for abortion contain the same fatal flaw: they make presumptions.
This is not unique to pro-choice people. In fact, in order to formulate any argument, presumptions must be made. The reason that is damning for pro-choice arguments for abortion is that they thereby concede there must be a Natural Law.
Let me explain…
Let’s begin with a helpful illustration to see the trouble abortion advocates run into. Let’s look again at bodily autonomy, which remains one of the most popular pro-choice arguments for abortion these days.
For those unfamiliar, the bodily autonomy argument says, even if the preborn child inside the pregnant mother is human, she can kill the baby. The reason, they say, is because the mother has bodily autonomy. Thus, she cannot be forced to care for the child growing inside her, against her will.
The abortion proponents think they have made a solid argument. Many pro-lifers act as if they have.
The problem with the abortion advocates’ appeal to bodily autonomy lies in its inherit need to make a presupposition. Why is that? Let’s dive deeper.
THE PRO-ABORTS ALWAYS MAKE PRESUMPTIONS
The abortion advocates make a presumption that they are rarely called out on.
In their arguments, the abortion backers presume a sense of fairness, common good, or something they presume we can all agree is important. They just hype up that element of their argument, and pretend as though that thing justifies murder of babies.
Going back to the bodily autonomy argument, the pro-abortion crowd tries to appeal to everyone’s sense of freedom or autonomy. Just as you would not want people telling you what you cannot do, they expect you not to tell a mother she cannot get an abortion.
Here, they are presupposing autonomy, expecting everyone to recognize it and to wish no one has theirs infringed upon.
As an aside to my main point, what such abortion backers also fail to recognize is that autonomy is not absolute.
They are correct to presuppose that taking away someone’s choices is to place restrictions on their behavior.
What they leave out is that not all choices are equal in moral gravity. Some choices are wrong. Thus, it is not in everyone’s interest to allow any and every action.
Maybe an example would be helpful here.
Suppose Congress were to debate on the floors of both chambers the merits of adding a new Constitutional Amendment. The Amendment would make child neglect legal, and no longer punishable by law.
I imagine abortion advocates would be morally outraged at such a suggestion. Surely, they would not support such a bill being passed, right?
But why not?
If they are for the “freedom to choose,” then how can they oppose the law? Doesn’t every woman have a “right to choose” whether to fulfill her motherly duties to her child?
Oh, that applies only to babies in the womb, not born ones, you say?
Oh, so you do admit mothers (and fathers) have a moral obligation to care for their young?
Then why does that become an obligation only when the child is born?
Or to flip it the other way, why does she lose her “right” to not care for her child once the child has been born?
Of course, even though it remains illegal, women (and men) are able to still choose to neglect their children today. But I hope we can all agree those who choose to neglect a child should be punished by the law.
No one is arguing whether people have choices. We are arguing the moral merit of certain choices. We are claiming there is a right and a wrong.
By this simple illustration, we can see that not everyone ought to be “free” to act in any matter they wish. But the mantra of being “pro-choice” has a hard time defending itself in this regard.
As just shown, a parent cannot claim a “right” to abandon a child. A pervert cannot claim a “right” to rape women or children. A doctor has no “right to personal autonomy” that precludes him from punishment, should he purposely overdose a patient so as to cause her death.
THE ABORTION BACKERS MAKE ONE PRESUMPTION WHILE IGNORING OTHERS
Now, back to my main point. In order to rationalize murdering preborn children, abortion proponents ignore the presumption that murder is wrong and cannot be condoned.
Yet, they hype up the presumption of personal autonomy and pretend as though that is absolute.
Thus, they appeal to a Natural Law, whether they realize it or not. They are presuming everyone will recognize the validity of their argument for autonomy. If this were not the case, their argument would fail.
In other words, they have admitted there is something morally obligatory to each human person… that is, a right to autonomy.
But what would be so bad about removing someone’s “right” to do an action, such as murder their own child? I think the pro-abort would say that it violates a sense of fairness. You wouldn’t want someone preventing you from doing as you please, so don’t do it to others.
Okay, so now they are presupposing fairness too. Add this as another presumption they recognize.
If you admit people owe each other things, out of fairness, then that presupposes we are to live in community.
If we are to live in community and we owe each other fairness, then we owe it to each other to do actions that promote the common good. One of these is to respect each other’s autonomy (not forcing them into slavery, for instance), sure.
It would not be a stretch to say we also owe each other the right to life. Just as you don’t want your life taken against your will, you must extend that to every human being. Every human, by the very fact of their being a human being, is owed this right, and all these rights discussed.
But, as we all know, pro-aborts deny that every human being has a right to life. After all, they say killing preborn human beings should be allowed.
Their logic falls on its face.
I hope I have made myself clear. I have just laid out a Natural Law argument.
The pro-aborts want to deny all human beings have a right to life. But this is impossible.
Some of them even want to claim there is no right or wrong. But how can there be absolutely no absolutes? Logically, it fails.
If nothing is given (or presupposed), then nothing can be proven. Not even the claim that nothing can be proven.
For, if you cannot presuppose people know the meaning of the words “there,” “are,” “no,” and “absolutes,” then the claim, “there are no absolutes” would be meaningless.
Add it all up and all pro-choice arguments for abortion make presuppositions. Presuppositions that, in the end, must include the right to life.
So, do you follow the Natural Law argument?
What are your thoughts?
Please leave a comment below.