The False Narrative of "Force"

It’s become evident as of late how ineffective the pro-life movement is and how little power it possesses. Though the pro-abortion enthusiasts are quick to take their victory laps, I think their victories are much more about our lack of persuasion rooted in a lack of ethical understanding of why abortion needs to be abolished.

The first important misunderstanding is the abortion ban itself. Too many people think of an abortion ban as something being done to a woman rather than a prevention of violence against pre-born human beings. Abortion apologists revamp the definition to “terminating a pregnancy,” leaving out the major detail of “resulting in the death of an embryo or fetus.” An induced abortion is not successful unless fetal death occurs. An induced abortion is a premeditated homicide. An abortion ban is no different than any other law against the murder of that same human being five minutes, five years, or fifty years outside of the womb. It is not legal for a mother to conspire with a pediatrician to kill her toddler, so it certainly shouldn’t be legal for her to conspire with an abortionist to kill that same human being in the womb.

I often hear abortion advocates say things like we’re “forcing” women to be pregnant, carry the baby, “forced birth,” and so on. Recently, figures on the right like Mike Cernovich and Ann Coulter have echoed this sentiment. Many libertarians feel this way and reject the government telling a woman what to do with “her own body.”

However, the government doesn’t “force” a woman to be pregnant. If they do, that’s horrific and criminal. But we know in most cases, pregnancy is the result of consensual action. The government doesn’t “force” you to give birth. Birth is the emergence of the child from the womb. That is a natural inevitability, whether the child is alive or dead. An abortion is literally “forced birth” to a dead baby. The government doesn’t “force” a woman to carry the baby. She’s already naturally doing that. If I were broke and my solution was to rob my neighbor at gunpoint, would the government be responsible for me being broke because they initiated laws against armed robbery? Of course not. You are not “forced” into a state you’re already in simply because the government won’t sanction a violation of someone else’s rights to get you out of it.

The argument is that abortion is necessary because if the mother doesn’t want to be pregnant, the only way to end the pregnancy is an abortion. This is not true. A mother will no longer be pregnant in 9 months or so. You could argue the only “immediate” way to end the pregnancy is an abortion, but that’s not true either. If you visit the Boulder Abortion Clinic in Colorado, on the first day of your four-day abortion procedure, Dr. Warren Hern is going to induce “fetal demise.” Then, you’ll carry your dead baby until day four when they break it to pieces and pull the corpse out. By the third trimester, you could induce the labor and deliver a live baby. About half of the women who go to Dr. Hern’s clinic don’t have tragic stories. He’ll even perform an abortion based on sex preference.

During a D&C (dilation and curettage) and D&E (dilation and evacuation), the pre-born child is removed while being torn to pieces. Even if you have a non-surgical abortion, mifepristone is taken to block a hormone called Progesterone, which is necessary to continue the pregnancy. The lining of the uterus breaks down, cutting off blood and nourishment to her offspring, and then the child dies. Then, the mother takes misoprostol, which causes heavy cramps and bleeding to flush the dead body out. Here is another example of ensuring fetal death before evacuation. Abortionists don’t simply evict an unwanted tenant; they make certain the tenant—who only resides there because their parents invited them into existence—is dead before they leave. Even squatters have more rights than a mother’s child in her womb.

Abortionists make certain the child is dead before exiting the womb because when the violence is out of sight, we think of it as a little more polite. Dr. Kermit Gosnell was sentenced to prison for inducing labor and snipping the spines of babies fresh out of the womb. For some reason, we find that extraordinarily monstrous, as opposed to Dr. Warren Hern, who makes certain to poison the baby before removal. There is nothing so magical about the vagina that it makes a human being somehow worthy of human rights. Those are the lies we tell ourselves.

An abortion is not a statement of bodily independence like a tattoo or breast implant. It is not a life-preserving medical procedure like removing a blood clot or cancer. Not all medical procedures are ethical simply because a patient grants consent. Go ask your doctor if he’ll remove your arm in the name of “bodily autonomy.” But an abortion isn’t about “bodily autonomy.” Bodily autonomy is about making decisions about your body, your life, and your future. Abortion is about ending someone’s life, erasing their future, and expelling their body. 

Do we have the right to deliberately and needlessly kill innocent human beings? If your answer is “no,” you should support an abortion ban. Is it within the government’s authority to institute a law against taking innocent lives and enacting justice against culpable parties who willingly violate the law? If your answer is “yes,” you should support abortion bans.

Too often, people who support or even reject abortion see abortion bans as the government being mean to the mother. If you don’t believe stopping Lizzie Borden from hacking people with an axe is too mean, it’s not too mean to stop an abortionist from tearing the limbs off a fetus with a Sopher clamp or suction machine, whether they’re healthy, sick, disabled, or conceived by horrendous means. If you think it would be cruel to leave a newborn alone to starve to death, why would it be any less cruel to purposely deny that same child blood and nutrients in the womb? Because they don’t have your consent? Biology doesn’t require your consent, and your consent doesn’t poof a baby away. An induced abortion is the intention to violently kill your offspring, and we as a society have no obligation to consent to that.

You can argue the ability to perceive pain or consciousness makes the difference, but all you’d be arguing is that murder is permissible if the victim is made to be unaware of the brutality of it. Besides, deep down, we all know the pre-born are entitled to the right to life because if the fathers were secretly slipping abortion pills to mothers, we would believe that’s murder. 

To be “pro-choice” is to believe murder is permissible if the mother chooses it. But a child is not an accessory that you may choose to carry, switch out, or discard when it doesn’t match your plans. The ethics of abortion are not difficult. Life is difficult. Sometimes, we make irresponsible or even reasonable choices that result in complicated or undesirable outcomes. Sometimes, tragedy hits us like a freight train and our difficult circumstances are not of our own making. But we do not permit murder to solve our economic, relational, or health issues outside of abortion. If whatever reason you conjure for an elective abortion couldn’t be used to justify killing a two-year-old, it’s not a good reason to kill that same human being if we rolled the clock back.

The baby’s rights don’t supersede the woman’s rights, but some rights do trump others. Women do not have the right to do “whatever with their own bodies” because they can’t use their bodies to murder someone else. There are limits to bodily autonomy and personal liberty. Women do not ask for abortions expecting their limbs to be torn off. They clearly understand someone else is being killed in the process.

The next time someone claims the government is forcing a woman to have a baby, ask them to explain how and instruct them to be as detailed as possible. And if they’re brave enough to bring up “termination of the pregnancy,” ask them again to be detailed. Let them describe the level of violence they advocate for. Then tell them their definition of “force” is preventing that violence. You may not believe this child is alive and worthy of protection, but that is your dogmatic belief. By all objective scientific standards, the pre-born are living and human. Why should we create laws to permit child murder based on subjective feelings and beliefs?

The government is involved in the business of many things it shouldn’t be, but they do exist to protect our liberties, such as the right to life, which is a right to not be killed. The government has a much more legitimate role in protecting the pre-born rather than facilitating the death of that child and offering the assassins immunity. Mothers are not entitled to a special murder right because they’re the only ones who can carry a child. Take that up with God, Mother Nature, or evolution. The government didn’t design the reproduction of our species, nor did they reproduce the baby in the womb.

There are more issues to address, but first understanding that an abortion ban is a moral good and a government’s duty is a crucial step in the right direction. No abolitionist or pro-life activist should accept the narrative of “force.”