Pro-Choice — Pro-Life

Fetal Termination — Slavery

I understand the pro-choice viewpoint: A woman has a right to autonomy over her body. To deny autonomy, to force a person to submit to the will of another, is slavery. Life strains for autonomy.

I understand the pro-life viewpoint: Life starts at conception and terminating any human fetus, no matter its stage of development, tears at the heart. Pro-lifers see themselves as righteous advocates for the fetus, and I, in sympathy, see life-affirming intentions as good.

Life versus life.

Two legitimate viewpoints, but neither are lily white. Partisans need to acknowledge their warts. For the pro-choice people, that’s a terminated fetus; for the pro-life people, it’s enslaving a pregnant woman. None of us are saints, and compromise is easier if we stop seeing ourselves as such.

With conflicting interests, we need a balance point. Consider five situations where a woman wants to end her pregnancy. (For reference, a viable fetus is one that has developed to a point where it has a reasonable chance of surviving outside of the womb.)

Should the woman be made a slave to:

1) the pre-viable fetus of a rapist?

2) a fetus that is non-viable due to developmental defects?

3) a non-viable fetus that threatens her life, health, or future childbearing ability?

4) a fetus that has yet to reach viability?

5) a fetus that has reached viability?

To deny an independently functioning person autonomy over their body demands a societal interest that clears a high bar for justification. With the first three situations, an affirmative answer seems absurd. Why give power to a rapist? Why cause unnecessary suffering? Why allow defense against a threatening person but not a fetus?

In situation #5, the fetus has reached a point where denying the woman freedom seems the lesser of two evils.

Situation #4 is the conundrum. Some see righteousness versus evil, but a good heart will ache for both a lost fetus and an enslaved woman. An unwanted pregnancy is one of those inherently messy issues for which we need rules. In a democracy, specifying those rules rests with the voters. We probably shouldn’t need to point it out, but abortion rights are somewhat unique in that half the voters have no direct skin in the game.

Let’s create a hypothetical framework to help the thinking of those who are isolated from ever needing an abortion.

Imagine that a fetus could be transplanted into an artificial womb. The technology, however, requires a person (the Life Giver, or LG) to have their blood flow connected to the artificial womb twelve hours a day. The only eligibility requirements are that the LG has been sexually active and not given birth within the past year. The LG must also get hormone injections that typically result in minimal long-term body changes. Lastly, LGs are selected at random from a state’s population.

In that hypothetical world, abortion rights are on the ballot. For any pregnancy situation where abortions are forbidden, and the would-be mother either can’t or doesn’t want to continue, the fetus will be transferred to an artificial womb and an LG drafted. You may feel this hypothetical world is unfair, but that is irrelevant. As a potential draftee, how will you vote? For which fetuses are you prepared for the government to tell you that you must set aside your autonomy?