For the Silent Voices: The Woman's “Right” to choose
Author Lance Phelps - 11 minute read
Now we must turn to dismantling the arguments used to prop up the institution of abortion. But nevertheless the foundation we laid in the first two articles in this series should not be forgotten. The arguments that we will be looking at in this and the upcoming articles will be largely products of errant foundations more than anything else. So in many ways we will now be demonstrating why the worldly foundations used to prop up abortion fail on multiple levels. We will see that on the face of it the arguments that we are looking at actually use bits and pieces from the one true worldview and then attempt to meld these pieces of thought into a new synthesized worldview. An example of this is the belief held by modern secular feminist that all women should be seen as equal in value to all men. This idea is actually borrowed from a biblical worldview, for the bible teaches clearly that all the sexes are equal in worth. But when it is taken and used in a secular worldview the idea makes no sense, for the foundation of Biblical truth has been striped away. From a secular viewpoint, especially an evolutionary one, why should all women, or any woman for that matter, be seen as equal to any man? Should not the stronger being call the shots? In many cases the community of men are stronger and therefore, from the logical outcome of a secular worldview, these men should be able to simply dictate how much worth the women in their community have.
Why Do We Get to Choose?
The first argument that we will take a look at goes as follows:
All women have a right to autonomy.
Autonomy includes the ability to choose to keep a pregnancy or no.
Therefore all women have a right to choose to keep a pregnancy or no.
This argument is commonly used in conjunction with the following argument:
Slavery is removing human autonomy.
Outlawing abortion would remove a woman’s autonomy during her pregnancy.
Therefore outlawing abortion would be a form of slavery for women during pregnancy.
In order to understand why these arguments are false, and proves to be an issue for even for those who argue this way, we will need to understand what the terms Autonomy and Slavery actually mean. (we will deal with the slavery argument in part 2 of this article.)
What is Autonomy?
Autonomy sounds like the ideal state for man. This is especially the case for our western enlightenment soaked individualistic minds. But this is only the case for several reasons that when set on display reveal serious problems with the concept.
Autonomy comes from the Greek words Autos and Nomas, which means self and law respectively. The term is used to denote a form of self governance. I write “a form” because very few systems consistently apply the true form of this concept to life. The extreme form of autonomy in humanity claims that each one must be totally free of all restrictions. There are real problems here. Obviously a human person cannot be set totally free to act out all of the inclinations of their hearts at all times. Total autonomy decries any law including the ones that protect the weaker from the stronger. Total autonomy will not work. What now?
Those who attempt to construct a form of autonomy that is workable in a society that is not anarchy will then place limits on the human person. They will add a qualification to their form of autonomy such as “people should be autonomous as long as they do not infringe upon another persons autonomy.” But do you see what is happening here? Already we realize and admit, and this is nearly universal, that humans can not be truly autonomous. We must have a law apart from ourselves to protect the weak from the stronger and many other crucial things. We must have law. This alone falsifies the first premise in the first argument above.
What is Morality?
Enter morality. From this idea we get the universal notion of the ability to say those magical words you ought. Make no mistake this phrase is universal. All people say it and mean to restrict the thoughts, actions, and beliefs of other people. But who truly has the authority to say it? The world builds complicated philosophical systems in order to somehow justify their use of the phrase you ought. But non come close to the Truth. And yes, by Truth, I do mean Jesus Christ. Only the creator can truly say those words. All others are hypocrites who seek to create law and apply it to others. So morality must only be formed by the Creator. We must only be those who relate the Creators law to those who break it.
Yet, as we have seen, the word of the creator, the only one who can rightfully make law, has spoken and human autonomy is found wanting.
Under the law of God we flourish because we are acting as we were designed. Yet again this means that our autonomy, our self-law, is completely cast aside. If we are to submit to the one true law then we cannot be a self-law.
Thus the notion that a woman can choose to terminate a child in order to preserve some notion of autonomy is shown here to be ridiculous. Let alone that even within this errant worldview we must not violate the autonomy of another person and so we are not allowed to kill a baby: to do so would be to violate their own autonomy.
We have seen in this article the notion of autonomy is piratically not workable. There is always a law that is outside of the person that governs that person. But the question then becomes what law? The answer is clear: the Law of the Creator.
In the next article we will ask the question: is pregnancy slavery?