Refuting the ‘Forced Birth’ Smear

F or quite some time, one of the most common defenses of abortion has been that the unborn child — fetus, a clump of cells, whatever euphemism you prefer — resides inside the mother and thus is something akin to her property. The pro-abortion slogan “my body, my choice” and similar women’s autonomy arguments for abortion are based on this premise.

It’s a fairly easy argument to refute. The unborn child’s existence inside his mother doesn’t make him part of the mother in any significant way. Morally speaking, his body does not belong to her in a way that gives her license to end his life. He is an entirely unique, distinct organism with his own functions. And his reliance on his mother while still in the womb isn’t all that different from his dependence on her after birth. A neglected infant will soon die, just as an unborn child will die if separated from his mother.

The unborn child’s location, then, is not a good enough reason to kill him. But as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, considering Mississippi’s 15-week ban on abortion, supporters of abortion rights turned to another defense: the “forced birth” smear.

Julie Rikelman, the attorney for Jackson Women’s Health, alluded to it in her opening statement: “For a state to take control of a woman’s body and demand that she go through pregnancy and childbirth, with all the physical risks and life-altering consequences that brings, is a fundamental deprivation of her liberty.”

Lamentations of “forced birth” and “forced pregnancy” cropped up in much of the commentary from the Left after the arguments, including from Democratic politicians, pro-abortion feminists, media outlets, and other commentators.

There are several obvious problems with this phrase. For one thing, it ignores the natural connection between sex and reproduction. Human beings have known for all of history that this natural connection exists, and the advent of contraception does not negate it. Contrary to the “forced birth” argument, the overwhelming majority of pregnancies are the result of consensual sex, one natural result of which is pregnancy.

Demanding that women not enact violence against their offspring is not remotely comparable to the state coercing them into pregnancy, and it’s dishonest to suggest that these are the same thing.

Once a woman is pregnant, the proper question is no longer whether she wishes to be pregnant, to give birth, or to be a parent. The question is whether her various desires are sufficient grounds for ending the life of the unique, distinct human being in her womb — her own child. As my colleague John McCormack aptly put it: “Once an unborn child exists, she will be born into the world one way or another: Alive or dead. Intact or in pieces.”

If laws against killing an unborn child amount to “forced birth,” then presumably laws against killing one’s three-year-old or 14-year-old amount to “forced parenthood.” Under this framework, laws against murder that prevent me from killing my husband mean that I’m in a “forced marriage.” There is no logical way to distinguish between these cases under the pro-abortion argument.

If a woman can choose abortion merely because she no longer wishes to be pregnant, because childbirth is painful, or because she does not want to be a parent — and can thereby describe any effort to stop her from doing so as “forcing her to give birth” or “forcing her to be a parent” — then there is no logical argument for preventing anyone from enacting violence against other human beings who cause them pain or inconvenience.

Under the “forced birth” framework, there is no logical argument against killing one’s child after birth if he or she is inconvenient or unwanted. There is no logical argument against killing one’s elderly father if he becomes burdensome. Indeed, there is no logical argument against killing one’s neighbor if he’s playing his music too loudly and refuses to turn it down.

Pregnancy and parenthood are, to be sure, an enormous burden. The pro-life argument does not entail believing that every pregnancy is easy, that childbirth is pain-free, or that being a parent involves no self-sacrifice. In fact, quite the contrary. The pro-life view is that, despite the suffering and difficulty involved in every aspect of being a parent, it is never morally acceptable to respond by enacting violence against the unborn child.