The Flawed, Circular Logic of Abortion Ban Proponents vs. A Valid Logical Argument for a Proponent of Abortion Rights

Abortion Bans are Pro-Choice Paradox

Logical arguments have premises and a conclusion. For an argument to be valid, the premises must be related to/support the conclusion. A sound argument is a valid argument with all true premises and thus a true conclusion. An argument exposing something as objectively good must be a sound argument reached from entirely objectively good premises - good ends must come from good means.

Abortion bans are ultimately circular arguments. Circular arguments are necessarily fallacious and can be used to form absurd arguments. Banning abortion sets a premise that can be made to lead to allowing abortion so this is a paradox - you permit abortion by prohibiting it - then can go back to banning abortion. And many other atrocities. The premise that abortion bans are a good thing is a fallacious argument of personal beliefs, and it is substantiated by many other fallacies, paradoxes, and contradictions. It defies logic. 

The Circular Logic In Favor of Abortion Bans

1. Reliance on Personal Beliefs: I support abortion bans because it kills a Zygote/Embryo/Fetus (ZEF) and I believe that a ZEF is a person/individual and I believe all killing is murder and murder is wrong.

2. Ignoring Existence of Justified Homicide: I choose to ignore that justified homicide exists - most commonly in instances of self-defense.

3. Ignoring All Rights Are Based on Self-Preservation, Erosion of 2nd Amendment and Violation of 9th Amendment: I choose to ignore that self-defense like abortion is a form of self-preservation. While I acknowledge the importance of self-defense I paradoxically challenge the importance of its parent concept of self-preservation, and ironically in arguing against self-preservation I weaken self-defense claims. I will ignore the relationship between self-preservation and self-defense and that these are the underlying principles of the 2nd amendment. I will pretend I haven't just undermined the 2nd amendment, and the 9th amendment in the implied right to self-preservation in the space of our own bodies.

4. Ignoring Objective Basis for Harm & Risk Assessment: I choose to ignore that statistics from the CDC and FBI indicate maternal mortality rates are higher than the murder-crime rates for rape and burglary, instances where lethal self-defense may generally be permissible. I also choose to ignore that pregnancy/birth is objectively inherently, inevitably harmful (at minimum lots of pain, discomfort, bleeding, loss of an organ, a large internal wound where said organ was previously attached, permanent anatomical changes, etc.). I also choose to ignore that the duty to retreat can't be fulfilled because of my stance because once pregnant abortion would be the only way to retreat from continued pregnancy/birth. I choose to ignore that objectively pregnancy/birth in general universally meets the most stringent set of self-defense criteria we have.

5. Ignoring the Unpredictable Nature of Pregnancy/Birth: I refuse to acknowledge that pregnancy/birth are both still very unpredictable medical events/conditions and even what seems like the most healthy pregnancy can rapidly and unexpectedly devolve into morbidity/mortality for the gestating person. I will ignore this in order to dismiss the "reasonable fear of harm" criteria for lethal means of self-defense/self-preservation, despite the fact that it is objectively substantiated by the inherent harm of pregnancy/birth, the high risk of death relative to crime murder rates for rape and burglary, and its unpredictable nature.

6. Placing Unequal Value on Human Entities, Innocence-Incrimination Paradox: I refuse to acknowledge the objective risks of pregnancy/birth because fundamentally I believe a ZEF's right to life is more important than any of the mother's rights. I believe this is fair because I believe in imposing through threat of force of the law the social constructs of motherhood on a pregnant person. I will ignore that the same social constructs (and the nature of pregnancy) would indicate a ZEF's will should be subservient to their mother's. I will ignore that pregnancy is one of the only biological forms of government and that pregnant mothers are the only legitimate law makers when it comes to the rules of their pregnancy. I will pretend that my characterization of the ZEF's innocence as basis to protect it also presumes that it is the ZEF's will to usurp it's mother's authority in the sovereign state of the confines of her body and incriminates the ZEF: I will ignore this innocence-incrimination paradox. I will make comparisons to bio parents' duty to safely transfer born children to other caretakers while conveniently ignoring the fact that care of a ZEF cannot be safely transferred to someone else. I will excuse my moral imperialism because I believe I am right.

7. Moral Imperialism Is a War Crime: I will conveniently ignore that the pregnant body is technically a sovereign state and that forceful moral imperialism directed toward any other sovereign state would be a war crime.

8. Baseless Duty to Provide Bodily Aid: I will conveniently ignore that there are not any other circumstances where a parent is lawfully required to physically suffer for the sake of their children's safety. They are specifically not able to be legally compelled to donate their organs/tissues/bodily fluids to their born children, whereas pregnancy requires all 3 to service the needs of a ZEF. I don't care though, I will demand it of pregnant people for the sake of my beliefs.

9. Conflating Individual Will/Consciousness with Legal Individualism: I will conveniently ignore that our laws generally only recognize "personhood" as beginning at birth. I will refuse to accept that this is because the role of government is to protect freedom where it naturally exists and that ZEFs are by nature completely constrained and unfree and wholly dependent entities. I will knowingly conflate individual will/consciousness with legal individualism. Also while I will insist on conflating individual will/consciousness with legal individualism for prohibitionary purposes I will reverse course when it is pointed out this view would necessitate extension of benefits to the ZEF and their mother. My belief that my beliefs on abortion are right validates me being inconsistent in my beliefs.

10. Perpetuation of Discrimination, Violation of 14th Amendment: In falsely categorizing a ZEF as a lawful individual I have placed more value in a potential person than an existing person. In continuing to insist they are both "people" I'm perpetuating discrimination. I am ok with bypassing the 14th amendment and supporting discrimination to further my beliefs on abortion. I will ignore that allowing one form of discrimination could be used to justify further forms of discrimination. I have accepted that discrimination is ok as long as my beliefs are justified.

11. Invalidation of Consent: I will insist that consent to sex is equal to consent to pregnancy despite the fact that they are obviously different things. I will ignore the fact that other conditions are routinely treated regardless of whether or not they are a product of "bad" or even "dangerous" choices. I will ignore established principles on consent - that it must be explicit, specific and ongoing. I will refuse to acknowledge that perpetuating disdain for consent apologizes rape and virtually all crime and abuses. I refuse to acknowledge the impact devaluing consent could have on medical decision making in general. I refuse to acknowledge the impact that devaluing consent will have on the restraint of government power. I refuse to acknowledge that our country is built on the principle of "consent of the governed" and that consent is the fundamental divide between free society and tyranny.

12. Disregard for Due Process, Violation of the 5th Amendment: I am willfully ignoring basic principles of consent in order to justify instituting laws that seek to punish people for getting pregnant. I will ignore that neither sex nor getting pregnant are crimes. I am ignoring that abortion bans punish people by restricting their right to self-preservation without due process. I will also deny the government/public has any obligation to provide just compensation to gestating persons for fulfilling the "duty to gestate" these laws seek to impose, contrary to the 5th amendment. I will pretend I haven't just made the case for every living pregnant person or person who has been pregnant to demand reparations for having fulfilled this government imposed "duty to gestate". I am ok with completely decimating the 5th amendment to further my beliefs.

13. Perpetuation of Involuntary Servitude, Violation of the 13th Amendment: I will conveniently ignore that abortion bans seek to force people who have committed no crime to unwillingly continue their pregnancies and endure labor and birth for someone else's benefit through threat of legal action. I will ignore that this by definition is involuntary servitude and that this is prohibited by the 13th amendment. I am ok with invalidating the 13th amendment for my beliefs.

14. Apologizing Slavery in Violating the 13th Amendment: I will conveniently ignore that the 13th amendment also prohibits slavery. I will pretend that I haven't apologized slavery even though I clearly have by supporting laws that bypass the 13th amendment.

15. Ignoring the Right to Bodily Sovereignty Permits Assault and Murder: I will continue to pretend that bodily sovereignty is not the most basic right a free society can protect. I will ignore that preservation of one's life cannot be separated from preservation of one's body. I will continue to try to delegitimize it to further my beliefs. I will ignore that in undermining the importance of this right I could be apologizing other transgressions against it, like assault of all kinds and murder. I will pretend that my logic can't be used to apologize murder, which paradoxically is the very thing I say my beliefs are trying to prevent.

16. Ignoring That Bodily Sovereignty Is Essential to Maintaining Legal Individualism: I will pretend that the logic of my beliefs couldn't be twisted to further other ends that I claim not to like. I will ignore that over the course of this argument I have basically argued against legal individualism and unwound much of our constitutional protections and undermined all things of objective moral value that this society claims to protect.

17. Refusal of Civic Duty to Rational Evaluation of the Law: I refuse to acknowledge that belief is not rationale. I refuse to rationally evaluate my beliefs. I refuse to acknowledge that it is my civic duty to put aside personal beliefs and evaluate laws honestly and rationally.

18. Refusal to Accept that Subjective Beliefs Can Be Made to Justify Anything: Because I am untethered to objective reality, I will rely solely on my subjective beliefs. Because beliefs can always be warped to justify other beliefs, back to point 1: "I support abortion bans because abortion kills a Zygote/Embryo/Fetus (ZEF). I believe that a ZEF is a person and I believe all killing is murder and murder is wrong". 

A Logical Argument In Favor of Abortion Rights

To contrast, here would be a logically valid (and in my humble opinion sound) argument for abortion rights:

1.  I know that abortion is a deeply morally divisive issue.

2. I know that not all females seek abortions, but if they did it would be objectively bad for our species. I also know it is objectively good to be respectful of the value of all lifeforms. Therefore, I recognize that there is at least some valid and good basis in being morally opposed to abortion.

3. I know that the purpose of the law in the US is to protect legal individualism while promoting legal individuals to seek to civically ally with one another to support mutual interests. I recognize that maintaining peace and order through consent are supposed to be the fundamental responsibilities of our government and what it should seek to instill in civilian interactions.

4. I recognize legal individualism requires a human to exist as an independent, self-reliant and rationally self-interested being. The less self-reliant and/or rationally self-interested a human is, naturally the less authority they tend to have over governing themselves (e.g. children, people in a vegetative state, people suffering from severe cognitive impairments, etc.). 

5. I recognize that in being in the unique state of complete reliance on and encapsulation within one specific person while not having any apparent rational function (not to be conflated with sentience), a ZEF cannot meet the requirements of legal individualism. A ZEF is a human reliant entity. I recognize that the event that transforms a ZEF into a legal individual is birth - when a baby is physically liberated from the confines of their mother's womb and can service their own essential functions independent from another individual's body (even if only for a short time). 

6. I recognize that pregnancy inherently involves a loss of individualism. A pregnant person's body is more accurately described as a sovereign state - a space occupied by two or more wills/consciousnesses/souls, but ultimately presided over by the the self-interest of the mother's will (both through her conscious and unconscious processes). 

7. I recognize that our government exists to protect individual rights in the space of inter-personal social contracts. I recognize that it is also the government's duty to protect intra-personal rules and boundaries (i.e. bodily sovereignty) from being usurped by extra-personal forces in order to maintain justice, peace, and order. I recognize that abortion bans are themselves an extra-personal force seeking to usurp intra-personal arrangements and as such they are inherently unjust in their disrespect for the individual boundaries of the pregnant body's presiding individual will. I know that if our government were to enforce restrictions on any other sovereign state for the purposes of moral imperialism it would be considered a war crime.

8. I recognize that even ignoring the false equivalency of a ZEF to a legal individual, there is no objective basis for denying an abortion as the fear of harm/death from pregnancy/birth is objectively reasonable, and the basis for any justified homicide ultimately falls on reasonable fear of harm. Pregnancy/birth are unpredictable in nature and inherently, inevitably harmful (at minimum lots of pain, discomfort, bleeding, loss of an organ, a large internal wound where said organ was previously attached, permanent anatomical changes, etc.). Maternal mortality rates are higher than the murder-crime rates for rape and burglary. Pregnancy/birth fulfills all of the most stringent criteria for lethal means of self-defense (which I know is just another form of self-preservation).

9. I know that neither I nor any abortion-abolitionists I have argued with have been unable to cite any other laws that require a person to provide bodily aid to their children or anyone else. To the contrary, I have only found evidence that such laws are not legally viable or constitutional. 

10. I know that ultimately the objective of any free society or just moral system is to recognize that we each have a will that we seek to freely follow, and in order to do that it must be free from undue restrictions. I understand that a mother's will to restrict or oppose her ZEF's will is due according to biology and the legal processes we have in place to protect the right to self-preservation. Contrastingly, I have encountered no objective proof that abortion bans constitute a duly justified restriction. As such, I know that abortion bans should be repealed as they are unjustified. 

11. While I understand that abortion bans are objectively bad and unsubstantiated from a legal standpoint, I also understand that people are still entitled to their personal opinions on abortion as it relates to their own family-planning and peaceful efforts to try to lawfully persuade others of the value of taking a personally pro-life stance. Per point 2, honest pro-life arguments that are considerate of individual circumstances and merely seek to persuade rather than compel other individuals into valuing all human entities are objectively morally good.

Free Person Criteria

The benefits of legal individualism can logically only apply fully to civically and naturally free persons. A free person who is civically engaged would evidently be one who meets the following criteria:

1. An independent living human organism.

2. Not restrained by the law beyond its limitations.

3. Not restrained by other individuals beyond the limitations allowed by the law.

4. Not restrained by natural circumstances to a physical space (i.e. not inhabiting someone else's body) or state of existence (i.e. not dead or unborn) that are beyond the limits of the law.

The Cause of Our Divide

Governments of manmade design contrast to the one the natural state and governance pregnancy imparts in that there is no inherent dependency - if we socialize we are consciously engaged, and either seek to commune in peace or in hostility. Ultimately, our disposition is dictated according to what circumstances allow for the mutual continuation of our species. In a state of deprivation, hostility and competition is naturally warranted for survival. In a state of prosperity, peace is plentiful and cherished. 

The underlying issue is we are or believe we are in a state of deprivation, either through societal or natural decline. We need to honestly come together for the purpose of actually fixing problems not creating them where they simply do not naturally exist. That requires checking our egos and working toward equitable, mutual interests prioritizing seeking truth, consent, and respect to the utmost degree possible so we can identify what our actual existential threats are and whether they are product of nature or man-made designs. In the interest of peace, we need address this issue and immediately repeal all abortion bans. Laws that would baselessly render free citizens involuntary servants are a war crime perpetrated against us by our own governments. Please do not form an opinion according to ideology here. Seek reason/knowledge, the most peaceful road to prosperity.

Abortion Bans are Invalid as Pregnancy Is The Original and Only Typical Natural Form Of Government to Exist

Abortion bans defy the laws of nature and reality. 

That which is and never was free, does not have freedoms to protect. From the moment of conception until birth a ZEF is a resident of its mother, and is naturally dependent on her will to survive and thrive. This includes being subject to both the needs of her involuntary bodily processes and her whims. In best cases her will is charitable to the cause of reproduction, but sometimes it simply may not be.

There is no more natural, fundamental, or legitimate form of society or bodily social union than sex, conjoined twins, and pregnancy. Sex does not involve a necessary dependency, whereas conjoined twins may and pregnancy absolutely does. We can see clearly in our distinction between a conjoined twin and a parasitic twin that in instances where only one twin has a clear advantage of self-reliant function their will is prioritized over the life of the other. Pregnancy similarly can only be governed by the conscious and unconscious presiding will of the gestating body, including the mother's rational self-interest.

Pregnancy is the original and only typical natural form of government in existence, with the mother its executive sovereign.

There is no more legitimate law-maker anywhere than a pregnant woman setting the terms for her and her offspring's survival, and any that claim to be or would seek to overthrow her law simply are falsely flattering their authority and making the presumption that they know better than the laws of nature. Do not believe them, and if you are one check your ego. 

Abortion Bans Are Objectively Morally Bad

Objective moral worth can only apply to things that are universally good.

If in some cases a conception leads only to a woman suffering and wishing she wasn't pregnant and she ultimately miscarries, that conception did no good. Ergo conception is not objectively morally good.

If a pregnancy carried unwillingly only causes a woman to suffer for its entirety and both she and her child dies in labor, that pregnancy did no good. Ergo pregnancy is not objectively morally good.

A mother giving birth to a living baby unwillingly only does one person good.  Ergo unwilling birth is not objectively morally good.

A healthy mom willingly giving birth to a living baby does both parties good. Ergo giving birth willingly to a living baby is objectively morally good.

A government can't protect something that is not objectively morally good at someone else's expense and be a good government, ergo abortion bans are objectively bad.

Abortion Bans seek to usurp a sovereign government - that of a mother and her child - for the purpose of moral imperialism. Members of the UN must respect a sovereign state. Ergo abortion bans are a war crime and objectively bad according to American ideals.

Religious / Christian Faith Argument

In simplest terms, God created us according to His design, and who are you to question that?

He designed the state of pregnancy, and the authority it naturally demands. To oppose a woman's natural authority over her ZEF is sacrilegious. To blaspheme God's evidently natural law in an attempt to subjugate another human is not to fall from grace but to willingly leap from it. 

If your objection is the commandments - God created us before he issued the commandment, and how could he command something in contradiction to his perfectly created state of pregnant authority? This is legalism, again, a fall from the grace of God. 

If you seek salvation, change your views and repent.

Naturalization Paradox

1. A ZEF is naturally not free in its dependency on its mother.

2. If you naturalize a ZEF to protect it under the law, it would also obligate it under the law.

3. You are not completely free if you have legal obligations.

4. In naturalizing the ZEF you have effectively ensured it will be born enslaved to the country in providing it with legal freedoms that would simultaneously deprive it of all freedoms because freedom can't exist where one never was allowed to be free from obligation.

McFall V. Shimp, the Right to Refuse Bodily Aid, and the Urgent Need to Protect Abortion and Our Constitution

Two years after Roe V. Wade was overturned and in an election year, we are living amidst a raging debate on abortion. As of writing this, there are 43 states with abortion bans or gestational restrictions in place.[1] While Roe V. Wade may have been the most compelling argument for constitutional protection of abortion in its time, it was incomplete and more effective precedents have since been set that are not adequately discussed. As a result, I would like to bring to your attention the case of McFall V. Shimp and explain how it supports that abortion without any restrictions is constitutionally protected.

McFall v. Shimp, 10 Pa. D. & C.3d 90 ( 1978)

McFall V. Shimp was a 1978 Allegheny County, PA court case. The plaintiff Robert McFall was gravely ill and in dire need of a bone marrow transplant. McFall’s cousin - the defendant David Shimp - was the only available bone marrow match, but refused to make a donation. McFall sued Shimp citing old English law and, per presiding judge John P. Flaherty Jr., posed the following question to the court:

“in order to save the life of one of its members by the only means available, may society infringe upon one’s absolute right to his ‘bodily security’?”– Judge John P. Flaherty Jr.

Judge Flaherty’s following ruling provides the best legal precedent in support of abortion, even in accepting the opposition's strongest but debatable claim that a zygote/embryo/fetus (hereinafter called ZEF) qualifies for legal personhood from the point of conception.

"The common law has consistently held to a rule which provides that one human being is under no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action to save another human being or to rescue. A great deal has been written regarding this rule which, on the surface, appears to be revolting in a moral sense. Introspection, however, will demonstrate that the rule is founded upon the very essence of our free society…For our law to compel defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change every concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual, and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn…For a society which respects the rights of one individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting to our hard-wrought concepts of jurisprudence.” – Judge John P. Flaherty Jr.

Implications of McFall V. Shimp on Abortion - The Right to Refuse Bodily Aid

Forcing a person to provide bodily aid to a ZEF by carrying it for any duration and birthing it against their will - regardless of whether or not they were a voluntary party during conception - is in direct opposition to the ruling in McFall V. Shimp. Doing so would obliterate the principle of ongoing consent and would render the pregnant person an involuntary servant, violating the 13th amendment. This would also mean that pregnant individuals are not receiving equal protection of the law, violating the 14th amendment. The counterargument that McFall V. Shimp establishes the right to refuse bodily aid even when it results in death but does not establish the right to directly cause bodily harm or death naturally follows. Let’s look at the abortion procedures currently available and their mechanisms of action to see whether an argument for self-defense is necessary.

Medical Abortion is Justified by the Negative Right to Refuse Bodily Aid

Medical abortion drugs (Mifepristone and Misoprostal) are either synthetic prostaglandins or stimulate the release of natural prostaglandins, resulting in changes to a pregnant person's anatomy that induces contractions and bleeding to empty the uterus.[2][3] The resulting death of the ZEF in this case is due to the removed access to maternal organs/tissues/bodily fluids, not any direct harm to its person (certainly not any moreso than a miscarriage or spontaneous labor). The right to refuse bodily aid regardless of its consequence to others established in McFall V. Shimp thus fully justifies these types of abortion. Surgical Abortion and the Right to Lethal Force in Self-Defense Surgical abortion procedures entail dilation of the cervix through which the ZEF, placenta, and/or any other products of conception are evacuated and may utilize the same drugs as medical abortion in addition to aspiration, forceps, or curettage to extract the ZEF and pregnancy tissues.[4] Physical trauma sustained by the ZEF during the evacuation process is likely to be the cause of its demise, and thus justification is needed in these instances to establish whether the mother has a right to cause such harm. We've already established that coercive bodily aid is inherently wrong; why and for whom it is done ultimately is irrelevant. The question now is whether coerced bodily aid in itself permits the use of deadly force in self-defense. To keep things as analogous as possible, let's use the following hypothetical scenario wherein someone is similarly being compelled to provide reproductive bodily aid and faces similar risks, and we’ll address sex-as-consent arguments.

A woman goes to the hospital to have a damaged ovary laparoscopically removed. Her Doctor is fully certified and well trained in performing all surgeries pertaining to the female reproductive system (with case fatality and morbidity rates matching national averages for each, though the patient is not aware of that). He is also a leading expert on uterus transplants. It is deemed in this patient's case that local anesthesia will be used, so she is awake during the procedure. The doctor begins surgery. After the ovary is visible on the screen, the doctor pauses, looks at the patient and says "I'm going to take the other one too. And the tubes, uterus, cervix, the whole thing. You're not using it and I want it to be able to help someone who I believe deserves to use it now. Don't worry, I'm not trying to harm you and it'll be a by-the-book laparoscopic hysterectomy. I'll reimplant it back into you in 9 months when they're done with it." Despite her screaming "No!" and pleading with him to stop, he adjusts the laparoscope and begins making another portal incision on her abdomen, opposite the side of the damaged ovary. No one is coming to her aid, and she can't fully escape the table restraints to retreat. Immediately the patient is filled with dread. Will she ever be able to have the baby she's been trying for? Is she actually going to make it off this operating table alive? Panicked, she manages to lunge for a scalpel and stabs the doctor, killing him.

I think most reasonable people would be utterly horrified by this scenario and would not question that lethal self-defense was warranted, nor would they argue that in consenting to the initial surgery on her ovary the patient somehow implicitly consented to a hysterectomy. Again, consent must be specific, informed, explicit, and ongoing. How might one argue now that the threat posed to the patient in this scenario necessitates use of lethal force but self-defense from an undesired pregnancy does not? Let's look at all the common legal criteria for use of lethal force required throughout the states and see how they compare.

1. Is the threat imminent?

Both involve an imminent threat - the pregnancy and surgery are already underway in both circumstances.

2. Was the fear of harm reasonable?

Given the loss of autonomy combined with the fact that the threat in both cases is already underway and that neither are without risk of death or serious injury, yes.
No pregnancy is without risk of maternal death or serious illness or injury, and will almost certainly result in permanent anatomical alterations and minor injuries. It is impossible to predict beyond the shadow of a doubt whether or not a pregnancy will result in maternal mortality or morbidity. Additionally, the CDC indicates that the case fatality rate for legal induced abortions as of 2019 was 0.0043%, whereas the total maternal mortality rate as of 2019 was 0.02%, meaning that pregnancy and birth are over 46 times more likely to result in maternal death than legally induced abortion, so it is reasonable for a pregnant person to fear the effects of the pregnancy and believe that killing the ZEF via abortion is the safest option they have.[5][6]

3. Can the duty to retreat be fulfilled?

No. There is no way to retreat from pregnancy or birth once underway beside abortion, and there is no procedure currently available that will remove the ZEF in such a manner that both parties are free of risk of harm or death. The ZEF can't be unconceived. Nor can it be fulfilled in the hypothetical surgery scenario, the patient is restrained.

4. Was the response proportional? Again, the risk of fatality in both circumstances is not 0, so right there we can argue yes. To further prove the point, we can compare statistics for both with other scenarios that generally warrant use of lethal force in self-defense. Comparing the FBI’s reported crime volumes in the US against its reported murder circumstance volumes from 2015-2019, the following approximate average crime victim murder rates are able to be determined: rape 0.017%, burglary 0.01% (see table 1). As for our scenarios, the laparoscopic hysterectomy mortality rate is estimated at 0.05%, whereas the current maternal mortality rate as of 2022 is 0.02% of live births.[7][6] Thus, both of our scenarios are slightly more likely to prove deadly than rape and significantly more likely to prove fatal than burglary. As lethal use of force to defend oneself from rape or burglary is generally permitted, we must accept that it should be permitted to defend oneself from the risks pregnancy/birth poses.

5. Castle doctrine

Our bodies are more our home than any house. If people have a right to use lethal force to protect their home against intruders, they have just as much right to do the same with bodily intrusions. It would seem we have satisfied all common criteria for self-defense and thus use of lethal force in surgical abortion - or any other manner of legal abortion - is justified.

Summary, Conclusion and Call For Congressional Action

Thus we have established the following points:

1. McFall V. Shimp affirms that we have a right to refuse bodily aid, regardless of why or for whom it is refused, even if the refused party dies as a result of lack of access to said bodily aid.

2. Consent must be specific, ongoing, explicit, and informed. Consenting to one form of care from a health provider does not indicate consent to additional procedures, for example. Thus, consenting to sexual acts with one person is not the same as consenting to carry and sustain the life of another person, ergo a pregnant person can revoke consent to provide bodily aid to a ZEF at any point.

3. Denying a pregnant person the right to refuse bodily aid to their ZEF but protecting any other person's right to refuse bodily aid to that same ZEF via organ donation would result in unequal protection of the law, explicitly violating the 14th amendment.

4. Denying a pregnant person access to abortion renders them an involuntary servant to their ZEF, explicitly violating the 13th amendment.

5. A pregnant person has a right to self-defense against their ZEF. Given the imminent, unpredictable nature of pregnancy and that maternal mortality rates are higher than the murder rate of rape or burglary victims, the use of lethal force to defend oneself against unwilling pregnancy is justified. Abortion bans thus implicitly violate the 2nd amendment.

6. Banning legal abortion procedures is thus entirely legally baseless even when accepting the claim that a ZEF is a legal person from the point of conception.

Additionally, I’d like to make one further point:

7. Babies born alive by any means - even if an undesired result of an abortion - are unequivocally legal persons entitled to the same right to life and protections as any other child. As the bodily threat they posed during pregnancy/birth has already passed, killing them once delivered would be murder.

Again, as of writing this, there are 43 states with abortion bans or gestational restrictions in place. As a consequence, not only are people with seemingly healthy pregnancies being denied abortions, but also those with unhealthy and/or non-viable pregnancies are being denied them, and the quality and efficiency in providing care for miscarriage is also suffering.[8] Given that, and the above point #2, it is imperative that Congress utilize the power granted it in section 2 of the 13th amendment to pass legislation enforcing the constitutional right to freedom from involuntary servitude that any state abortion ban or restriction would infringe.

Abortion is a deeply emotional topic for many. I am not asking you to feel good about this. In fact, I believe every circumstance where abortion is necessary is extremely unfortunate and sad for a variety of reasons. We cannot undermine our constitution to avoid that which makes us uncomfortable though. What we should do is seek to affect positive changes in our society that make abortion less sought after. We can create a culture where the prospect of raising a child is not seen as an insurmountable burden. There are other venues to fight this battle. Additionally I would urge you to reflect on events in our country in recent years and ask if it really is a surprise that we have found ourselves in such a state of tyranny with respect to bodily autonomy. The parallels between compelled bodily aid to a ZEF in the form of pregnancy and compelled bodily aid to at-risk populations in the form of mandated vaccines should not be lost on you. However well-intentioned the support for either may be, both have eroded our nation’s hard fought protections of individual rights and muddled the public’s understanding of what the role of government should be in these circumstances. Given that these trespasses seem to be increasingly common and that the abortion debate has been a distracting point of heated political contention for 50+ years, the right to refuse bodily aid should be explicit in our constitution to avoid any further confusion or transgressions. Congress should propose a constitutional amendment protecting the right to refuse bodily aid and the right to bodily autonomy in general.

For counterarguments to this essay, see Counter Arguments And How to Refute Them - The Constitutionality of Abortion.

Sources

1. McCann, A., & Walker, A. S. Abortion bans across the country: Tracking restrictions by state. Updated 2024, Sep 17. In: The New York Times [Internet]. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/us/abortion-laws-roe-v-wade.html 2. Autry BM, Wadhwa R. Mifepristone. [Updated 2024 Feb 28]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557612/ 3. Krugh M, Patel P, Maani CV. Misoprostol. [Updated 2024 Feb 19]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK539873/ 4. Ajmal M, Sunder M, Akinbinu R. Abortion. [Updated 2023 Jul 10]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK518961/ 5. Kortsmit K, Nguyen AT, Mandel MG, et al. Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2020. MMWR Surveill Summ 2022;71(No. SS-10):1–27. DOI. http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss7110a1. 6. Hoyert DL. Maternal mortality rates in the United States, 2022. NCHS Health E-Stats. 2024. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15620/cdc/152992.

7. Augusto KL, Brilhante AVM, Modesto GCD, Saboia DM, Rocha CFC, Karbage SAL, Magalhães TF, Bezerra LRPS. Costs and mortality rates of surgical approaches to hysterectomy in Brazil. Rev Saude Publica. 2018 Mar 12;52:25. doi: 10.11606/S1518-8787.2018052000129. PMID: 29561962; PMCID: PMC6257415. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6257415/#:~:text=Hospital%20admissions%20were%20300%2C231%20for,missing%20data%20in%20our%20database. 8. Westwood, R. Standard pregnancy care is now dangerously disrupted in Louisiana, report reveals. NPR; 2024, March 19. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/19/1239376395/louisiana-abortion-ban-dangerously-disrupting-pregnancy-miscarriage-care

Counter Arguments And How to Refute Them - The Constitutionality of Abortion

For the original argument these are in response to see McFall V. Shimp, the Right to Refuse Bodily Aid, and the Urgent Need to Protect Abortion and Our Constitution

1. Arguments of Nature: It is a woman's nature to carry, birth, and raise children. 

Refutation: Reducing people to merely their nature or biology will not help any counter-argument in opposition to abortion. Research shows us that there is evidence that other mammals have evolved to miscarry-on-demand in order to survive when resources are scarce or when social conditions change and the risk of rival male infanticide increases. There a plenty of instances of outright maternal infanticide and newborn rejection throughout the animal world as well. Humans have evolved to use tools, and abortion is the use of tools to mitigate the risks of pregnancy and birth.

Biological reductions would make it permissible to take a "survival of the fittest" stance towards our offspring, jeopardizing the safety of living children. This logic would also necessitate supporting eugenics.

Our legal system rejects such reductions. The law has consistently upheld that sex-based interpretations are unconstitutional. If you are a citizen, per the 15th amendment you have the right to vote, regardless of sex. The 14th amendment is even broader and ensures equal protection to all people (not necessarily just citizens), and in case anyone needs a reminder, women are people. 

2. Organ Function Argument: It would be wrong to be compelled to donate vital organs/tissues/bodily fluids as they have evolved to work specifically to support your body. A uterus's only purpose is to carry a ZEF.

Refutation: Uteruses are not self-sustaining. You can't just cut a uterus with a fertilized egg in it out of a person and 9 months later a healthy, full-term baby comes out. Pregnancy is sustained through multiple vital organ systems. A woman must produce 20-50% more blood to sustain a pregnancy, putting more strain on her heart, for example. Accepting the argument above does not justify compelled pregnancy, but does justify compelled sperm donation as sperm have no purpose beyond fertilizing eggs. 

 3. Bodily Aid vs. Bodily Responsibility Argument: Abortion is not refusing bodily aid, it is refusing bodily responsibility. A parent has an obligation to care for their child.

Refutation:  While you are legally obligated to care for and shelter your children, you are not required to do so at your body's expense. If your child is starving with no food source available that does not mean you must permit them to cannibalize you.

4. "Regardless of Consent You Knew the Risk" Argument

Refutation:  Invalidating consent is the means of tyranny. Our country was founded on the principle that government derives its power from the consent of the people. Undermining the importance of consent undermines the foundation of all our laws. 

Knowing the risks of engaging in an activity does not necessarily mean you are at fault for all of the consequences it can have.

I would venture to say most drivers are aware that car accidents are pretty common and are a leading cause of death. In fact, the average driver can expect to be involved in 3-4 accidents in their lifetime. Knowing that doesn't mean they are automatically at fault if they get into an accident and should be stripped of their driving privileges.

Interestingly the average woman will have just over 2 children in her lifetime. So the risk of a woman having an accidental child is less than the risk of getting into a car accident. 

Short of asking them to sign a contract acknowledging the risks of pregnancy, there really is no valid legal way to prove someone knew the risks sex entails. There are also definitely circumstances where people quite literally don't know the risks or cant possibly be aware of all of them, e.g. rape victims, minors.

 5. Rejection of Involuntary Servitude Characterization:

Refutation: Cornell Law's definition: "The term 'involuntary servitude' includes a condition of servitude induced by means of— (A) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that, if the person did not enter into or continue in such condition, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or (B) the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process." 

Again, the stipulation that consent must be ongoing is enforced. You can enter into an arrangement as a voluntary servant, revoke consent and if there are coercive factors like the abuse of legal process preventing you from leaving, then you are an involuntary servant. 

If we accept that people have a right to refuse bodily aid, the state's use of abortion bans to induce you to continue in your service to another person are in themselves an abuse of the legal process.

As I have yet to see irrefutable evidence that the right to refuse bodily aid can justly be denied, the involuntary servant definition applies. 

6.  Arguments Refuting Lethal-Self Defense as Proportional and Likening Abortion to Shooting Accidental Home Intruders on Sight:

Refutation: The threat in that example doesn't involve an intrusion or threat to your body. Pregnancy does. If you get pregnant it will inevitably harm you to some degree (at minimum lots of pain, dinner plate-sized wound where your placenta was, lots of bleeding) and as stated in the essay you are more likely to find yourself dead due to pregnancy complications than murdered as a complication of rape. It is demonstrably permissible in cases of rape / attempted rape to use lethal force to protect yourself. A rapist/would-be rapist doesn't even need to brandish a weapon to justify using lethal use of force in defense against them. This is because we have a natural understanding that rape itself is physically harmful to a person and it may lead to them being killed. Pregnancy is also physically harmful and statistically more likely to kill you. Anyone arguing this point undermines self-defense as a a whole. Lethal self-defense is not an explicit right in the constitution, it is implied and affirmed through case law, so it is inherently subjective and varies from state to state. Pretty much all hinge on the reasonable belief that your life or body are in imminent danger. As stated above and in the essay pregnancy is imminent in nature and by function necessitates physical harm to the mother.  

7. States Can Restrict Abortion as a Means of Self-Defense Argument:

Refutation: The right to self-defense is a natural right, it precedes government. You have a right to protect your body against any threat. The state's role is merely to verify that you did indeed act in self-defense and reacted appropriately to the threat.

Abortion by nature is a female-specific form of self-defense. The states cannot impose laws that would be discriminatory based off of sex. Abortion cannot be outright banned for this reason.

The state could require a trial to plead one's case that abortion was necessary. However, this would be an undue burden and an abuse of power by the state as it can always be proven that abortion is necessary. All pregnancies cause physical harm and are more likely to kill you than a crime for which lethal self-defense is seen as permissible (rape). There is no way to retreat. There are no other methods of defense to safely remove the ZEF that don't pose more of a risk to the mother. It all hinges around a pregnant person's reasonable belief of imminent harm, which is always reasonable because pregnancy necessitates harm to the mother (at minimum pain, loss of blood, loss of an organ (placenta), a large wound in your uterus where the placenta was). All that would be needed would be the requirement for a patient seeking abortion to sign a form listing the harmful risks associated with pregnancy and certifying that they are in fear of that harm and the potential for death.

8.  Argument that the supreme court has previously ruled that the goal of preventing abortion does not constitute invidious discriminatory animus, and therefore banning abortion is not discriminatory.

Refutation: There is a key detail in my argument that I believe the courts - and most people - have not considered or been made aware of before. The maternal mortality rate (0.02%) is higher than the rape murder rate (0.017%). New information requires we re-examine the pretenses on which we permit self-defense. Otherwise ignoring this fact and downplaying the risks of pregnancy and birth pose is absolutely an act of invidious discriminatory animus. 

If we permit rape victims to use lethal force to defend themselves, how can we not do the same for unwilling pregnant people facing a greater risk of harm and death? If your answer is that "there's no good reason to allow rape but there is good reason to prevent abortion" consider what you are really saying. If the cost of that "good" is the mother's will, bodily integrity, and possibly life, all you are protecting is her reproductive potential. If will, bodily integrity, and threat to life no longer matter, there is no point in preventing heterosexual rape as it increases reproductive potential. In this context, any anti-abortion argument devalues the right to self-defense and individual rights as a whole.

9. Argument that the military draft proves that the government is within its right to impose responsibilities on the people, even if they are burdensome and discriminatory.

 Refutation: As a staunch Voluntaryist I vehemently reject the draft. It is a prime example of the government overstepping it's authority and watering down individual rights. The majority of Americans also disapprove of the draft, to such a degree that it would likely render it ineffective if our government actually had the audacity to start it back up after 50+ years. If a war is worth fighting, people will volunteer. The draft merely enables the government to force us into fruitless, unethical disputes we have no business being involved in like the Vietnam War. I don't think the draft is a good example of how to meet ethical ends.

Opinions aside I would like to point out that abortion bans are essentially a draft. Abortion bans are mandatory reproductive service for the "greater good". The draft is mandatory military service for the "greater good". Worse than the military draft though, the reproductive draft imposed by abortion bans is constituted of wholly unwilling candidates. We have seen how the military draft was abused in Vietnam. Do you not see the potential for abuse with a reproductive draft? Take into consideration China's One-Child policy. Was that a good idea? If the US were to require mandatory birth control, sterilization, and abortion to benefit the "greater good" would you support that too? Certainly mandatory birth control or sterilization would solve the abortion problem, so should we support that? 

 Additionally, even if we accept the premise that the government reserves the right to enforce mandatory reproductive service, it does not have the right to do it with discrimination towards the female sex. Even the military draft is being reworked so as not to discriminate against women, with a bill currently pending senate approval that would expand automatic draft registration to women so our government can strip us of our will *equally*. So how do you propose we enlist men to do their mandatory reproductive duty? Particularly, how can we do it in such a way that they face the same risks and increased risk of mortality that pregnant people do? As stated in the above paragraph, mandatory sterilization and birth control would certainly help solve the abortion issue (though still not as risky as pregnancy or birth), so should we start there? Maybe require donation of a testicle too?

I would hope that on further reflection you realize how absurd this argument is and how yet again it undermines human rights that you otherwise probably claim to support.