The arguments in support of abortion are numerous and vary greatly in terms of how grounded they are. Some of them make sense to a degree and then others outright defy logic. In the last few weeks I have come upon a certain argument for abortion with increasing regularity. It is usually used by those who describe themselves as feminists but in truth bear little resemblance to the original Suffrage Movement. The argument that so many have latched onto is that of consent. They claim that pregnancy was never consented to, even though sex was, and therefore the fetus is an intruder. This allows them to morally justify killing it. Well, I reject that reasoning as being utterly and absolutely foolish, self-serving, and immoral. Let me explain why…
Having heterosexual sex carries the inherent risk of pregnancy, it is simply a fact of nature. The only way I can think of to have sex without the risk of pregnancy is if either the man or the woman have had major parts of their sexual organs removed. Such as in the case of a total hysterectomy or an orchiectomy. There is no contraception that can boast of a 100% success rate. Therefore, each time a man and woman with all of their sexual organs intact have sex with each other, they are knowingly engaging in an act that can bring about a pregnancy. In other words, they are consenting to pregnancy by taking part in an act they know can naturally result in it. Denying responsibility for something that is a direct and natural consequence of our choices will only serve to breed a culture of immaturity and carelessness.
My reasoning might be fine and dandy for consensual sex, but what about in cases of rape? First, some things to keep in mind when talking about rape and abortion. According to a survey conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, less than 0.5% of all abortions in the U.S. are due to rape. This number can likely be further scrutinized because of the varying opinions of what constitutes rape. I have seen it expressed that a woman merely regretting having sex with a specific man is enough to make her a victim of rape. It has also been proposed that a woman wanting to switch positions and the man refusing to is enough to constitute rape, even though both participants agreed to sex and the woman never told the man to stop. There is no way of really knowing how many of the women surveyed were raped according to the legal definition, which is something to keep in mind. That being said, in cases of rape my logic doesn’t apply. A woman who is raped is not consenting to the act and therefore is also not consenting to the risk of pregnancy. Does this mean she is morally justified in killing the fetus? Absolutely not. The fetus is still a human being and therefore should be valued as one. No crime has been committed by the fetus, he/she is innocent in the eyes of the law and is undeserving of death by the law’s standards.
Another issue with this concept of not consenting is that it completely cuts out the man. Within this argument lies another highly flawed idea…that the woman alone gets to decide which human beings are worth preserving and which ones aren’t. This usage of consent teaches that if a husband and wife have sex and the wife becomes pregnant, the growing human inside her womb is only of value if the wife deems it so. This is a dangerous belief because it places women alone on a pedestal and gives them sole power over life and death so long as that life is in her womb. Men and women are inherently different, down to the very way our minds work. This is so that we can make up for what the other lacks. Yet the idea that a woman has sole say over whether an unborn baby lives or dies robs men of influence and only serves to foster an increased animosity between men and responsibility. Feminists used to cry out for fathers and husbands to be more involved, to take responsibility for their children because they saw the value of men in the lives of kids. Now, these new “feminists” want to leave men with no sense of responsibility. Well, no responsibility that the women don’t want to hold them to anyway. They might deem a fetus worthy of continued existence, and if they do they will surely expect the man to take responsibility then.
A general selfishness is a part of the foundation of every pro-abortion argument, but it is perhaps a larger part of this one. Those who support this argument of consent are blatantly denying any responsibility for their actions. Furthermore, they are refusing to acknowledge a need to even think about the natural consequences of sex. Who needs contraception when they have morally justified executing the human being that may be conceived? This is not only dangerous for the unborn in the present, but also the future. As more people adopt these selfish beliefs the number of women getting abortions will only increase. The value of human life will continue to trend downward along with the value of personal responsibility and accountability. Arguments such as consent to pregnancy need to be fought against with patience, reason, and controlled passion. Given a little time and prayer we might be able to keep these dangerous ideas from forcing their tendrils deeper into our culture and society.
What would you say to someone who told you they are justified in getting an abortion because they didn’t consent to pregnancy while having sex? Share your thoughts in the comment section, you just might help someone out!