Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Troubler of Israel

Home
About

Home
Evangelical
Answering Pro-Abortion ‘Um, Actually’ Memes

Answering Pro-Abortion ‘Um, Actually’ Memes

Last updated on: February 2, 2017 at 7:50 pm by G. Shane Morris

Answering Pro-Abortion ‘Um, Actually’ Memes 2017-02-02T19:50:32-04:00 G. Shane Morris

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I frequently see pictures like this floating around Facebook and Twitter. They’re part of what I like to call the “um, actually” genre of Internet debate which depends on a single, often pretentious rebuttal to an unsophisticated meme, passed around triumphantly without giving the meme’s creator a chance to respond in kind. As political discourse, they’re a rung or two below those times John Oliver “destroyed” Donald Drumpf. Their purpose is not to inform or make converts, but to reinforce existing beliefs.

Pregnant_woman_(2) As popular as “um, actually” posts are, especially when it comes to the abortion debate, they’re not all that difficult to answer. What’s difficult is giving your answer the kind of legs the post, itself, has–especially once it’s screencapped below the original meme and circled in red. They’re the modern equivalent of traveling Saint George and the Dragon plays where the paper-decked monster is ritualistically vanquished by the hero before packing up and moving to the next village.

What we have in this one is essentially the famous violinist scenario (you wake up hooked to a concert violinist against your will, and must decide whether to stay with him for nine months or unplug yourself and let him die). But the comparison of motherhood with a scenario in which your bodily fluids are used against your will suffers from major problems. There are three ways this stage-play dragon is unlike pregnancy.

First, it assumes that the mother had no choice in becoming pregnant. False. In all cases except rape, she absolutely chose to have sex, which is how babies are made. Her bodily autonomy should have been exercised then, not after the baby was conceived. Nothing strange has befallen her. Sex worked!

Second, it equates a mother’s unborn child with a complete stranger whom she has been forced to unnaturally sustain with her body. But the mother-child relationship is deeply natural. It is virtually the only universal human relationship. And the baby in the womb is not an invader. It is literally an extension of the mother’s biological being, and is exactly where it belongs.

Third, this argument assumes that abortion is the equivalent of refusing to provide an organ to someone in need. In that scenario, you merely elect to keep your own body intact. You do not exert any violence against the person in need of an organ. This is not true of abortion, which involves much more than “eviction.” It is a violent procedure whereby an unborn baby is poisoned, crushed, burned, or ripped into pieces before being removed from the womb. Even if you have a right to evict someone (which a pregnant mother does not have) you have no right to commit violence against them. It’s the difference between a positive and negative act.

We could add a fourth point: Everyone, even radical pro-choicers, believes that parents have obligations to their children, and that they do not have total bodily autonomy. The very concept of parenthood assumes that children have a claim on your body, your time, and your resources. A mother has an obligation to feed her newborn child, if not with her body, then with a substitute. If she exercises her “bodily autonomy” and refuses the child food, she will go to jail. Total bodily autonomy is itself an unworkable concept. I do not have total bodily autonomy to perform excretory functions wherever I please. I do not have the autonomy to trespass, or even swing my fist wherever I please. Everywhere I go, the rights of others restrict how I can exercise my bodily autonomy. The idea that no one can ever make demands of us is idiotic.

I think anyone in their right mind would agree that someone who had nothing to do with a near-fatal accident which left a patient in need of a blood transfusion is not in the same position as a woman who took action designed to bring a child into existence, and now wants to hire someone to vacuum that child’s brains out. The two scenarios are vastly different, no matter how you slice it. Therefore, the analogy fails.

In the case of pregnancy resulting from rape (which is comparatively rare, and accounts for just one percent of all abortions) we need to exercise care, because the woman did not, in fact, choose to have sex or become pregnant. Someone committed a heinous crime and forced it on her. Nevertheless, I think we can argue from the natural connection of mother and child and the fact that more violence against an innocent party will be involved in terminating the pregnancy that the child’s right to live outweighs the mother’s claim on nine months of her life. But let’s go further, still.

If we accept the total bodily autonomy argument for children conceived in rape, it also proves too much. It means a mother should be able to kill or at least starve a newborn or toddler conceived in rape, because it reminds her of the crime. But no one but the most loony fringe ethicists at Princeton would argue this. Even the wackiest of the wacky probably believe that a mother of a one-year-old child conceived in rape must at the very least take the time to turn custody over to a new caretaker. But that small amount of time shows that they do accept a demand on the mother’s bodily autonomy, however brief. She cannot simply kill the child or leave him by the side of the road. Why? Because that child conceived in rape is nevertheless a child, who is naturally (as opposed to artificially) dependent on her care for life. But if fetuses in the womb are also children, then their origins do not abrogate their rights. Killing them or evicting them suddenly knowing they will die is equally wrong.

Pregnancy is just like forcing someone to give blood for nine months against their will? Um, actually, no.

Image: Wikimedia Commons, David Roseborough

Previous Post

January 23, 2017

Sea World Is a Victim of Its Own Success, and So Is Christianity

Next Post

February 8, 2017 Wispy, Octogenarian Baptist Grandmothers Are Manlier than I

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion Animals Apologetics Archaeology Atheism Bible Books Church Creationism Culture of Death Debate Devotion Economics Ethics Free Will Gender Issues History Holidays Intelligent Design Islam Liberalism Life Advice Media Movies Music Nature Parenting Philosophy Politics Prayer Race Relationships Science Sex Stories Technology Terrorism The Point Theology Uncategorized Youth

Select a Month July 2021 June 2021 April 2021 March 2021 November 2020 September 2020 May 2020 April 2020 February 2020 January 2020 November 2019 October 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Rabbi" mean in Hebrew?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Teacher Master Prophet Lord