Joy-Ann Reid writes that pro-lifers have a selfish motive when they compare abortion to slavery:
The analogy is meant to cast the anti-abortion movement in a positive, even heroic, light…
She obviously doesn’t understand pro-lifers, our arguments or our motives. Pro-lifers compare abortion to slavery because the comparison is appropriate: both abortion and slavery treat human beings as property. We’re appealing to people’s sense of justice that no one, including the weak and vulnerable in the womb, should be treated this way.
Ms. Reid spends a bit of ink trying to make the case that an unavailability of abortion is equivalent to slavery. Then she undermines her own position:
Empowering state governments (or even the federal government) to essentially force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, whether by outlawing abortion outright (the activists’ ultimate goal), or because all other options have been closed off, is certainly not slavery. But it unequivocally robs modern-day women of their autonomy and thus, their liberty.
Ms. Reid’s view is misogynist. Nature has dealt women a bad hand because pregnancy robs them of liberty. A realization of your inherent natural capacity for pregnancy robs you of liberty, therefore such capacity must be a disability or defect. So, it’s clear that Ms. Reid thinks that women are defective. The only way to experience true liberty is to escape from the defect, to undergo a form of corrective surgery called abortion.
Setting aside her misogyny, Ms. Reid inadvertently stumbles upon something true. I readily agree with her that pregnancy is not slavery. But does pregnancy rob women of liberty, as she suggests? No, it’s not robbery at all. It’s voluntary. In consensual sex, the man and woman volunteer for parenthood by participating in an activity which is naturally directed to creating a new human being. If a woman is pregnant, she volunteered for the job and so did her husband. Their obligation as parents has begun.
Does parental obligation constrain the liberty of parents? Sure. They can’t desert their young children for the weekend. Parents must care for their children and this limits their activities. This is because parents owe their children their care. Contrary to Ms. Reid’s view, no one should be allowed to escape their debt by killing the one to whom she's indebted.
Ms. Reid spews the common pro-abortion propaganda that a ban on abortion “essentially forces women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.” Not only is this bogus because, as explained above, pregnancy is a voluntary parental obligation, but it ignores the fact that abortion is a violent act of force against an innocent human being. By opposing abortion, pro-lifers aren't forcing anything on anyone but opposing the use of force against the innocent. If she truly opposed the use of force, Ms. Reid would oppose the lethal force of abortion.
See also part 1: Abortion vs other atrocities; appropriate comparison?
