Poor Pro-Life Argument #2: “Abortion is forced birth”

Mar 05, 2024

It is common to hear abortion bans referred to as “forced birth laws,” and to hear those who support abortion bans referred to as “forced birthers.” After all, “[a]bortion bans force pregnant women to endure the dangerous work of pregnancy, labor and childbirth against their will” and “place pregnant women seeking abortion under state control and require them to perform involuntary labor.” [1] At the force of the government and the law, bans require “a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest. Indeed, the actual process of delivery demands work of the most intense and physical kind: labor of 12 or more grueling hours of contractions is not uncommon.” [2] It’s no wonder why abortion bans are so unpopular— not only among those who consider themselves to be “pro-choice,” but also among those who both consider themselves “pro-life” and oppose government overreach into the most intimate facets of people’s personal lives and families.

In an effort to counter the “forced birth” label, many of those within the movement in favor of government control over human reproduction have been pushing a new counterargument: “Abortion is forced birth.” (If you spit out your water or coffee upon reading that, you're forgiven.)

The anti-choice argument that “abortion is forced birth” centers on the embryo or fetus. Birth, then, is something being done to the embryo or fetus, and is reduced to anything that results in an embryo or fetus being separated from the uterus. Therefore, the argument goes, in an abortion the embryo or fetus is forced to be born.

The first major problem with this argument is this:

The parameters of the argument are so expansive that the term forced birth loses all meaning. For example, when birth is conceptualized as something done to a fetus, then every single living person on the planet is the product of a forced birth. Not one of us birthed ourselves into the world.

Ever been to a baby shower? Ever celebrated the birth of a baby? You're pro-forced birth!

Some will add caveats to the “abortion is forced birth” argument, such as, “Abortion is forced birth because the baby isn't ready to be born yet.” Well, this also happens during an in-progress miscarriage where the embryo or fetus still has a heartbeat. Is having a miscarriage forced birth? And what about anti-choicers’ plan to force women experiencing pregnancy complications to undergo previability cesarean sections? Isn’t that a forced birth where the fetus is not yet ready to be born?

Another caveat is, “Abortion is forced birth because you use instruments to rip the baby out of the womb.” Well, doctors sometimes use instruments (forceps) to force a baby through the birth canal. Is that forced birth, too?

Yet, another caveat is, “Abortion is forced birth because it’s not naturally-occurring childbirth.” Well, neither is inducing labor and delivery. Is inducing labor forcing birth?

According to one prominent anti-choicer, “Abortion forces birth. Induction forces birth. C-section forces birth.” [3] When miscarriages, cesarean sections, induction of labor, and the use of forceps are forced birth, then the anti-choice charge that those who support reproductive autonomy are “pro-forced birth” becomes utterly meaningless. In the words of Macbeth, the argument is “full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.” [4]

The second major problem with the “abortion is forced birth” argument is this:

It fails to reckon with, much less refute, the reason why those who support governmental control over human reproduction have come to be labeled as “forced birthers.” The reality is that, even after all this time, they have no real response to the fact that banning abortion forces people - who would have otherwise had an abortion - into the involuntary work of gestation, which culminates in the arduous process of giving birth.

Birth is “the process of bearing young” [5]; it is “to bear or bring forth (a child).” [6] When a person is forced to do so, this constitutes forced birth.

Consider this: “An individual woman deciding whether to terminate a pregnancy will evaluate the morality of that act in light of her obligations to herself and others, including the unborn, if she conceptualizes the embryo/fetus as separate from herself. By contrast, a community deciding whether to adopt legislation restricting abortion must confront a question that she does not: whether it is appropriate to use state force against women to compel them to continue a pregnancy they otherwise would terminate.” [7] When members of a political movement - of a community - decide that the government should use state force to compel women to perform the work of gestation and childbirth, these members are supporting “forced birth.”

“Abortion-restrictive regulation is state action compelling pregnancy” and childbirth, “and this simple fact cannot be evaded by invoking nature or a woman's choices to explain the situation in which the pregnant woman subject to abortion restrictions finds herself. A pregnant woman seeking an abortion has the practical capacity to terminate a pregnancy, which she would exercise but for the community's decision to prevent or deter her. If the community successfully effectuates its will, it is the state, and not nature, which is responsible for causing her to continue the pregnancy. Similarly, a woman's choice to engage in sexual relations is no longer significant as a cause of pregnancy, if she would terminate that pregnancy, but for the interposition of communal force. A woman's ‘choice’ to engage in (protected or unprotected) sex… does not absolve the state from responsibility for compelling the pregnancy of a woman it prevents from obtaining an abortion.” [8]

In defensively attempting to apply their own forced birth position to those who oppose government-coerced gestation and childbirth, those in the anti-choice movement merely seek to distract from their own support for such governmental force, and to “obscure the fact that such restrictions are an act of communal force” in which members of the anti-choice movement are complicit. [9] However, attempts to distract and obscure “do not eliminate the task of analyzing abortion-restrictive regulation as an act of state force against women. When abortion-restrictive regulation is analyzed as state action compelling motherhood, it presents equal protection concerns” for women. [10] Yet, the anti-choice argument that “abortion is forced birth” attempts to sidestep analyzing or considering these concerns.

In sum:

The “abortion is forced birth” argument fails to land. The parameters of the argument are so expansive that the term forced birth loses all meaning, because when birth is conceptualized as something done to a fetus, then every single living person on the planet is the product of a forced birth. Furthermore, the “abortion is forced birth” argument fails to address the reason why those who support governmental control over human reproduction have come to be labeled as “forced birthers.” The reality is that, even after all this time, they have no real response to the fact that banning abortion forces people - who would have otherwise had an abortion - into the involuntary work of gestation, which culminates in the arduous process of giving birth. The “abortion is forced birth” argument is merely a transparent attempt to evade responsibility and complicity for their support of state/communal force, and to avoid examination of “abortion-restrictive regulation as an act of state force against women” that presents serious equal protection concerns. [11]

If you missed Poor Pro-life Argument #1, you can read pt. 1 here and pt. 2 here.

rePro-Truth

Discussion about this post