A while back I posted the remarkable statistic that Abortion Is The #1 Killer of Black Americans. I want to highlight a part of the debate that took place in the comment thread of that post regarding "a woman's right to choose."One libertarian left this comment:
To be against abortion is to deny self-ownership (of the woman over her own body) and is therefore unlibertarian. The "humanness" of the embryo/fetus is irrelevant to the question. Either we have sovereignty over our own bodies or we do not, period.
How can you, as a "libertarian", tell a woman who has been a victim of rape and become pregnant, that she has no right to decide what remains inside her body?
And I want you to read my response:
I agree that human beings have sovereignty over their own bodies and a right to be free from coercion.
In the case of rape, it is the rapist who has violated that right by putting the fetus there, not the government which then must act to protect the fetus' life as it does the life of every other human being.
Again, you are totally right that it is tragic, unfair, unjust, and a violation of a woman's sovereignty over her own body that she has to bear a fetus and carry it to term.
But again, I insist that it is the rapist who is responsible for that violation by irrevocably forcing the victim to carry a human life, and not the state that is then obligated to protect that life.
The rape argument is frequently made by pro-choice people, and my rebuttal above is an absolutely necessary clarification to make in order to help them see that while they are certainly correct that a woman's life and liberty are being tragically violated in the case of an unplanned pregnancy as a result of rape, that it is the rapist who is responsible for both the rape and all of its consequences- including the creation of a human being who is also entitled to her own life now that she exists.
The reason pro-choice advocates use this argument so frequently is that it leaves pro-lifers looking cruel, heartless, and clueless. It's never nice, right, or libertarian to side against a woman who's been raped. So it is absolutely important for the pro-life apologist to explain that he sympathizes with the rape victim, that he certainly agrees her rights were violated when she was raped, and that in having to carry a child to term that was put there without her consent, her rights are violated yet more. But it is not the state that has violated her in this way- it is the rapist.
Responding as I did in the comment above should hopefully make that clear and also make clear to the pro-choicer who is earnestly looking out for the woman's best interests, that you also empathize with the injustice and pure horror that a raped woman faces, which no woman should ever have to endure.
For a more in-depth response to the pro-choice commentator's claim above that " The 'humanness' of the embryo/fetus is irrelevant to the question," take a look at my article entitled "The Abortion Debate: A Reasoned, Scientific, Pro-Life Argument."
